»r-/ 


» 


( 


* 


LIBRARY 


OF  THE 


Theological    Seminary 

PRINCETON,    N.  J-. 


^"•••'^V     - Diy.isj.on....h- 

^^^^-  S^Qtipn..../0,  4.J^? 

Booh\  No  \Jy  '2-- 


tv  •  •    •  .  •  . 


A      DONATION 


PROM 


JcuL  /Ut 


Beceiued    //     .  /^ 


THE  REMAINS 


OF 


THE  REV.  CHARLES  HENRY  WHARTON,  D.D. 


WITH 


A   MEMOIR   OF   HIS  LIFE, 


BT 


GEORGE   WASHINGTON    DOANE,   D.  D., 


BISHOP  OF  THE  DIOCESE  OF  NEW-JERSEV- 


VOLUME     I  I  » 


PHILADELPHIA: 

WILLIAM  STAVELY. 


M  D  C  C  C  X  X  X  I  V. 


Entered  according  to  the  Act  of  Coiigress,  in  the  year  1834,  by  William 
Stavely,  in  the  Clerk's  Office  of  the  District  Court  of  the  Eastern  District  of 
Pennsylvania. 


{fy  Tlic  profits  arising  from  the  sale  of  this  work  will  l)e  appro pri- 
;iteil  to  the  establishment  of  a  Scholarship  in  the  General  Theological 
Seminary  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 


TO 

THE  VENERABLE, 

THE    PRESIDING     BISHOP 

OP 

THE    PROTESTANT    EPISCOPAL    CHURCH 

IN 

THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

THE    PATRIARCH 

OF    OUR     HOUSEHOLD     OF     FAIT  U, 

THE    RIGHT   REV.    WILLIAM    WHITE,  D.I)., 

THESERE MAINS 

OF  ONE 

WHO   WAS  FOR  FIFTY  YEARS  HIS  FRIEND, 

ARE  DEDICATED, 

WITH    SENTIMENTS    OF    FILIAL    RESPEC^T    AND    L0\f:, 

BY 
THE  YOUNGEST  OF  HIS  BRETHREN, 

THE  EDITOR. 


Burlington: 

OCTOBER, 
M  D  C  C  C  X  X  X  I  1 1. 


A 

CONCISE  VIEW 

OF 

THE  PRINCIPAL  POINTS  OF  CONTROVERSY 

BETWEEN  THE 

PROTESTANT  AND  ROMAN  CHURCHES: 

CONTAINING 

I.    A  Letter  from  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Wharton,  to  the  Roman  Catiio- 
lics  of  the  city  of  Worcester,  England. 
n.    A  Reply  to  the  above  "  Letter,"  by  the  late  Archbishop  Carroll. 

III.  An  Answer  to  the  late  Archbishop  Carroll's  "  Reply,"  by  the 
■  Rev.  C.  H.  Wharton. 

IV.  A  Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix  to  the  "  Catholic  Question 

in  America,"  by  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Wharton. 

V.    A  few  Short  Remarks  on  Dr.  O'Gallagher's  Reply  to  the  above 
"  Short  Answer,"  by  the  Rev.  C.  H.  Wharton. 


THE   SECOND  EDITION. 


PHILADELPHIA  I 

WILLIA^r  STAVELT. 


MDCCCXXXIV. 


1* 


EDITOR'S    ADVERTISEMENT 


The  Tracts  which  are  contained  in  this  volume, 
had  been  out  of  print  for  some  years  before  the  death 
of  their  venerable  Author.  It  is  to  be  lamented  that 
he  had  not  put  in  execution  the  design  of  republishing 
them,  which,  for  some  months,  he  had  entertained  j  as 
valuable  additions  might  have  been  expected  from  his 
practised  pen.  In  the  present  publication  of  them, 
the  Editor,  after  mature  reflection,  has  deemed  it  best, 
to  reprint,  without  deviation  and  without  comment, 
the  edition  of  1S17.  His  various  avocations,  and  his 
unexpected  absence,  for  several  weeks,  from  the  press 
from  which  they  issue,  have  prevented  his  making 
such  occasional  literal  corrections  as  were  necessary  in 
a  text,  which  was  not  originally  printed  with  accu- 
racy. Should  the  volume,  as  is  confidently  expected 
from  the  great  anxiety  which  is  expressed  for  its  ap- 
pearance by  all  Protestant  Christians,  pass  to  another 
edition,  the  opportunity  will  be  embraced  for  making 


Vlll  ADVERTISTMENT. 

such  improvements,  and  furnishing  such  accompani- 
ments, as  may  be  found  desirable.  Meanwhile,  the 
Editor  confidently  commends  the  Tracts  of  Dr.  Whar- 
ton, to  the  inquiring  and  intelligent  of  every  Christian 
name,  as  admirable  for  their  scriptural  authority,  their 
extent  of  research,  acuteness  in  argument,  and  ele- 
gance of  style,  and  unsurpassed  in  Christian  tone  and 
temper. 

G.  W.  D. 
Burlington,  October,  1833. 


PREFACE. 


The  two  first  and  the  third  of  the  tracts  here  published, 
have*  for  some  years  past  been  frequently  called  for,  and 
the  author  has  been  repeatedly  solicited  to  allow  a  new 
edition  of  them.  Motives  of  delicacy  only,  have  prevented 
his  compliance.  He  was  unwilling  to  renew  any  uneasy 
feelings  in  the  breast  of  the  venerable  writer  of  the  "  Ad- 
dress to  the  Roman  Catholics  in  the  United  States  of  Ame- 
rica," for  whom,  notwithstanding  many  illiberal  insinua- 
tions in  this  address,  he  never  ceased  to  entertain  sincere 
esteem  and  attachment.  By  the  decease  of  Archbishop 
Carrol],  every  disinclination  and  obstacle  to  the  republica- 
tion of  these  tracts,  is  removed.  They  who  may  now  enter 
the  lists  against  them,  will  not  be  able  to  advance  any  thing 
unnoticed  by  him,  and  therefore  no  dread  is  entertained  of 
their  being  refuted.  If  it  should  be  said,  that  publications 
of  this  nature  are  only  calculated  to  nourish  the  acrimonious 
spirit  of  controversy,  which  Christian  charity  should  rather 
strive  to  suppress,  let  the  reader  turn  to  "  the  Appendix  to 
the  Catholic  Question,"  published  at  New-York  in  1813, 
and  candidly  determine  whether  such  a  wanton  attack  upon 
the  Protestant  faith,  did  not  call  for  more  severe  animad- 
version than  that  which  it  received. 

A  pamphlet  in  support  of  this  publication,  and  written 
by  a  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  was  put  into  my  hands  last  fall. 
With  the  exception  of  some  coarse  abuse,  and  an  arrogant 
affectation  of  theological  superiority,  it  contains  little  or 
nothing,  which  was  not  refuted  in  the  Sliort  Answer  to  the 
Appendix,  My  friends,  however,  advised  me  to  notice  it, 
and  I  have  done  so  accordingly.  The  malignity  of  the 
Doctor's  remarks,  meets  the  pity  of  the  writer  of  these 
sheets,  and  is  freely  forgiven;  although,  if  unrestrained,  he 
has  no  doubt,  that,  by  some  fiery  bigots,  it  would  be  extend- 
ed to  personal  persecution.     As  an  evidence,  that  such 

[*  The  tracts  by  Dr.  W.  himself,  here  numbered  I.  III.  IV.  are  probably 
meant.    The  former  edition  was  printed  in  1817.    G.  W.  D.j 


X  PREFACE. 

feelings  exist,  he  will  take  the  liberty  of  presenting  the 
reader  with  the  copy  of  a  letter  which  he  lately  received 
from  a  Ronnish  Priest,  together  with  his  reply  to  it.  The 
letter  was  written  in  French,  and  is  literally  translated. 
The  original  is  v/ith  the  printer.  The  spirit  which  dictated 
it,  is,  I  hope,  confined  only  to  few  of  that  communion  ;  but, 
however  limited  it  may  be,  it  is  fraught  with  such  ma- 
lignant and  mischievous  materials,  that  no  attempt  to  keep 
it  under,  can  be  unseasonable  or  superfluous.  It  is  hoped 
that  the  present  publication  may  contribute  something  to 
this  effect. 

THE  LETTER. 

Baltimore,  20tk  March,  1816. 
Sir, 

I  WROTE  to  you  about  two  years  ago.*  With  equal  sim- 
plicity I  will  write  to  you  again — solely  for  the  good  of 
your  soul,  and  for  the  glory  of  God  and  his  church.  1  never 
mentioned  the  first  letter  to  any  person,  nor  shall  I  men- 
tion this.  The  same  secrecy  I  have  a  right  to  exact  from 
you,  until  it  shall  be  violated  by  some  infidelity  on  my  part. 
You  are  very  old.  Mr.  Carroll,  your  friend,  has  died  first. 
He  has  borne  before  God  the  testimony  of  the  scandal, 
which  your  renunciation  of  his  Church,  and  of  your  sacred 
priest-hood,  has  occasioned  in  his  diocese ;  of  the  scandal 
of  writings  so  outrageous,  from  your  apology,  down  to  that 
Theological  Magazine  in  the  first  number  of  which,  you 
begin  by  venting  such  strange  effusions  of  hatred  against 
your  Mother,  the  Church  ;  saying,  for  instance,  in  the  eulo- 
gium  on  Fenelon,  that  ignorance  only  can  embrace,  and 
cruelty  only  propagate  her  doctrine — thus  violently  insult- 
ting  those  of  your  former  friends,  whom  not  being  able  to 
pronounce  either  ignorant  or  cruel,  it  remained  only  to  con- 
sider as  hypocrites;  (Mr.  Carroll  at  their  head)  asserting 
again,  that  charity  is  incompatible  with  the  Catholic  faith  ; 
that  Fenelon,  like  Fra.  Paulo,  was  nothing  more  than  a 
Protestant  in  disguise  ;  He,  who  wrote  so  many  controver- 
sial treatises  against  the  Protestants,  and  the  Jansenists ; 
the  Missionary  of  Poitou,  which  continued  Catholic  during 
the  French  revolution  ;  the  confessor,  for  ten  years,  of  the 

*  This  letter  was  equally  insolent,  and  was  burnt  without  being  an- 
swered. 


PREFACE.  Xi 

new  female  converts ;  the  friend  of  the  Jesuits  and  of  St. 
Sulpice,  societies  so  decidedly  Catholic  ;  nay,  further,  the 
antagonist  of  the  liberties  of  the  Gallican  Church,  and  even 
jealously  attached  to  what  is  called,  in  France,  the  ultra- 
mountain,  or  Italian  system.  Alas  !  was  it  reserved  to  you 
to  make  Fenelon  also  a  hypocrite,  than  whom  no  man  ever 
enjoyed  a  higher  reputation  for  sincerity?  Rather  read,  O 
wretched  Priest!  his  beautiful  treatise  upon  the  minis- 
terial functions,  or  his  eight  letters  to  a  Protestant,  and  the 
rational  retractation  which  they  occasioned.  How  dare 
you  ;  how  dare  you,  I  say,  go  to  death  and  to  judgment  in 
your  present  melancholy  situation?  What  account  will  you 
have  to  render  to  Jesus  Christ,  of  your  conduct  against  his 
Churcl^?  You  are  imposed  npon  by  the  caresses  of  the  sect 
you  have  embraced.  I  have  seen  with  grief,  on  your  ac- 
count, their  efforts  to  entangle  you  to  the  last,  by  propos- 
ing you  as  Bishop  of  New-Jersey.  A  Bishop,  indeed  !  A 
Bishop,  on  Avhose  account?  A  Bishop  !  O  miserable  Priest, 
a  priest  at  present  without  faith^  without  sacrifice^  I  say, 
without  even  faith ;  for  among  all  the  Protestant  sects, 
what  choice  can  be  made,  one  opinion  being  as  good  as 
another,  whether  it  be  Luther's,  or  Calvin's,  Fox's,  Wes- 
ley's, Socinus's,  Priestley's,  or  any  other  non-descript  so- 
ciety. 

At  Mr.  Carroll's  death,  I  was  struck  with  the  desire  of 
writing  to  you:  at  present  this  desire  occurs  very  forcibly, 
and  1  yield  to  it  with  simplicity,  nay,  with  excessive  emo- 
tion.  Return  to  the  fatal  moment  of  your  separation.  Re- 
member poor  Lucas  ;*  imitate  his  repentance  ;  abandon  the 
fatal  courage  to  die  in  your  apostacy,  and  plunge  into  des- 
pair.  Reflect,  old  man,  still  respectable  for  your  age,  and 
the  excess  of  your  wretchedness,  reflect  on  the  good  which 
your  return  would  yet  do,  and  the  true  consolation  it  would 
impart  to  yourself.  I  do  not  expect  that  you  will  answer 
me,  but  ponder  before  God,  what  you  had  best  do.  Do 
not  die  in  this  manner — rather  follow  to  the  other  world 
your  favourite  Fenelon,  than  the  apostate  Luther.  A  spirit 
of  indifference,  the  dissenters,  the  Bible  Societies,  are  hast- 
ening on  the  ruin  of  the  establish  me  nt  of  IJcnry  VIIL,  Eliza- 
beth, and  Edward  ;  and  Unitarianism,  new  commentaries, 

*  Of  this  person  I  know  but  little.  I  am  glad,  however,  to  find  that  he 
died  a  penitent  for  his  immoralities.  I  never  heard  that  he  became  a  Pro- 
testant. 


Xil  PREFACE. 


liberality,  &;c.  threaten  Christianity  itself.  Membership 
with  the  only  Church  in  possession  of  the  promises,  is  the 
duty  of  every  enlightened  and  sincere  Christian  :  how  much 
more  so  of  the  miserable  Priest  who  has  had  the  misfortune 
to  betray  his  divine  priesthood.  Does  not  an  edifying  re» 
turn  become  urgent?  Ah,  do  not  be  so  dreadfully  courage- 
ous, as  thus  to  die  in  your  apostacy.  In  thinking  myself 
bound  to  give  you  my  name,  I  am  not  afraid  of  dishonour- 
ing it.  My  intention  is  pure,  and  I  disavow  any  unneces- 
sary affront. 

A.  BRUTE,  (I  believe,) 

President  of  St.  Mary's  College. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Wharton,  Burlington,  Neio-Jersey, 


ANSWER. 

Burlington,  April  20fh,  1816. 
Sir, 

In  answering  yours  of  the  SOth  ult.  I  will  begin  by  send- 
ing you  a  parody  of  a  celebrated  letter  written  by  the  great 
Dr.  Samuel  Johnson,  to  Mr.  James  Macpherson,  whom  he 
considered  as  a  literary  impostor,  and  by  whom  he  was 
threatened  with  a  personal  assault.* 

"I  received  your  foolish  and  impertinent  letter.  Any 
arguments  against  my  religious  opinions,  I  shall  do  my  best 
to  repel ;  and  what  I  cannot  do  for  myself  against  bigoted 
abuse,  my  friends  will  do  for  me.  I  hope  I  shall  never  be 
deterred  from  abandoning  what  1  think  an  error,  by  the  de- 
nunciations of  a  fanatic.  What  would  you  have  me  re- 
tract ?  I  thought  your  Church  unscriptural  in  many  points, 
and  I  think  so  still.  For  this  opinion  I  have  given  my 
reasons  to  the  public,  which  I  dare  you  to  refute.  Your 
unprovoked  resentment  1  defy — your  pity  I  reject.  To 
judge  from  your  letter,  your  abilities  are  not  formidable  ; 
and  I  am  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  your  erudition, 
to  pay  regard  to  what  you  can  say,  but  what  you  can  prove. 
You  may  show  this  to  whom  you  please,  or  print  it,  if  you 
will." 

This  parody  will  probably  appear  uncourteous  language 
to  the  president  of  a  College  ;  but  when  a  president  throws 

♦  Seo  Boswell's  Life  of  Johnson,  vol.  ii.  p,  133.  Boston  edit. 


PREFACE.  Xiii 

off  the  gentleman,  and  condescends  to  dabble  in  the  dregs 
of  bigotry,  he  has  no  right  to  expect  any  other.  The  feel- 
ings which  your  letter  excited,  would  not  have  partaken  of 
any  thing  like  resentment,  had  you  not  mentioned  my  vene- 
rable  relative  and  former  friend,  Archbishop  Carroll,  as 
countenancing  your  denunciations  and  abuse.  I  knew  him 
well.  I  loved  him  during  his  lifetime,  antl  shall  revere  him 
during  my  own.  Were  he  still  among  us,  I  would  have 
transmitted  your  letter  to  him  ;  where,  1  am  confident,  it 
would  have  met  the  reception  it  deserves.  He  was  too  well 
acquainted  with  the  sacred  rights  of  conscience,  and  the 
anomalies  of  the  human  mind,  to  condemn  the  exercise  of 
the  first,  or  wish  to  regulate  the  latter  by  the  standard  of 
his  own  opinions  ;  much  less  would  he  have  presumed  to 
consign  them  both  to  perdition.  Sir,  we  Americans  are 
better  taught  in  these  matters;  and  it  must  stir  our  bile  to 
hear  arrogant  foreigners,  presuming  to  vilify  the  most  nu- 
merous classes  of  Christians  in  our  country  ;  to  find  them, 
when  scarcely  escaped  from  the  fury  of  Jacobinism,  breath- 
ing among  their  kind  receivers  the  spirit  of  Inquisitors.  On 
every  occasion,  both  in  public  and  private,  1  have  uniformly 
treated  my  former  connexions  with  respect.  In  abandoning 
6ome  of  their  doctrines,  I  still  entertained  for  their  persons 
and  virtues  the  most  tender  attachment,  and  have  never,  for 
a  moment,  harboured  the  presumption  of  passing  condem- 
nation on  them  for  opinions,  which  to  profess  myself,  would 
be  a  sinful  prevarication.  If  you  had  understood  our  lan- 
guage, you  could  not  have  mistaken  what  is  said  of  Fene- 
lon  in  the  Theological  Magazine.  It  is  merely  asserted, 
that  although  a  member  of  the  Roman  Church,  he  was,  in 
some  sense,  a  Protestant ;  and,  was  not  this  the  case,  when 
he  protested  against  propagating  religion  by  the  sword,  a 
practice  zealously  advocated  by  Bossuet,  and  most  Roman 
Catholic  divines,  as  emanating  from  religious  intolerance, 
and  a  holy  incompatability,  as  they  call  it,  with  any  other 
Christian  societies — a  practical  doctrine,  involving  the  very 
essence  of  heretical  pravity,  and  calling  loudly  for  the  ana- 
themas of  an  infallible  Church,  unless,  indeed,  she  regard 
practical  errors,  most  destructive  to  society,  beneath  her 
notice,  when  compared  with  speculative  tenets,  which  seem 
to  shock  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  invalidate  the  evidence 
of  all  our  senses.  These  true  principles  of  the  Church  of 
Rome,  viz. :  intolerance  and  persecutioHy  which  she  has  al- 


XIV  PREFACE. 

ways  professed,  and  frequenily  realized,  when  possessing 
civil  power,  these  principles,  1  repeat,  "  cruelty  alone  can 
disseminate,  and  ignorance   alone  receive  ;"*  and  should 
such  principles  be  maintained  by  any  other  Church,  which 
never  can  be  j)roved,  all  we  can  say,  is,  that  they  merit  the 
same  unqualified  abhorrence.    Of  the  sincerity  of  the  amia- 
ble and  saintly  Fenelon  ;  of  your  late  learned  and  venera- 
ble Archbishop,  and  of  innumerable  other  worthies  of  your 
communion,  I   never  entertained   a  doubt.     It  is  the  duty 
of  all  real  Christians,  to  "judge  not  before  the  time,  lest 
they  be  judged."     Who,  then,  art  thou,  Mr.    President, 
*'  that  judgest  another  man's  servant,"  or  rather  a  man  de- 
voted to  the  service  of  Christ?     Abandon  this  crying  sin, 
my  good  sir.     But  if  you  deem  it  an  essential  mark  of  your 
Church  to  anathematize  all,  who  dissent  from  her  tenets, 
permit  me,  in  return  for  your  menacing  entreaties,  (nay,  I 
am  willing  to  suppose,  your  charitable  exhortations,  to  aban- 
don my  apostacy,)  to  beseech  you  to  ponder   in   tlie  pre- 
sence of  God,  and  with  a  free  and   unshackled  mind,  the 
reasons  of  Protestants  for  their  separating  from  your  Church, 
and  then,  perhaps,  you  may  be  induced,  by  a  similar  act  of 
apostacy,  "  to  come  out  of  her,  lest  you  partake   of  t|iose 
plagues,''  which  you  presume  to  pronounce  so  confidently 
against  me.     At  any  rate,  you  would  oblige  me  by  with- 
holding the  honour  of  any  more  of  your  letters,  the  disposal 
of  which  you  can  have  no  right  to  control,  as  you  seem  to 
imagine.     When  received,  they  become  my  property  ;  but 
it  is  a  property  which  I  do  not  covet.     Such  letters  siir  up 
angry  feelings,  which  I  wish  to  forget,  and  they  pick  my 
pocket    without   an    adequate  consideration.     'JMiey   may, 
moreover,  and  probably  will  be  mentioned,  in  a  manner  that 
may  prevent  Protestant  parents,  from  exposing  their  chil- 
dren to  instructors  of  this  description. 

With  respect  to  your  kind  cautions  against  the  caresses 
of  my  new  friends,  as  you  are  pleased  to  style  them,  and 
their  exertions  to  raise  me  to  the  Episcopate  of  New-Jersey, 
they  are  entirely  superfluous;  as  1  was  never  a  candidate 
for  that  sacred  and  responsible  office  ;  and  as  to  your  sneers 
against  Bible  Societies,  they  may  be  entitled  to  some  notice, 
when  the  declaration  of  the  Apostle  shall  become  obsolete, 
that  *'  the  Scriptures  are  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salva- 

*  See  Tlieological  Magazine  No.  1,  p.  22. 


PREFACE.  XV 

tion,  through  faith  which  is  in  Christ  Jesus  ;  all  Scripture 
being  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  being  profitable  for 
doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  riwh- 
teousness ;  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect^  thoroughly 
furnished  unto  all  good  works."  (2  Tim.  iii.  15,  16,  17.) 
In  the  mean  time,  if  the  dissemination  of  scriptural  know- 
ledge should  overthrow  any  Protestant  Churches,  either  in 
Europe  or  America,  the  sooner  they  fall  the  better.  It 
might,  however,  be  probably  more  wise  to  transfer  your  idle 
forebodings,  respecting  other  Churches,  to  well-founded  ap- 
prehensions for  your  own,  arising  from  such  a  circumstance. 
At  any  rate,  if,  as  you  flatter  yourself,  Bible  Societies  are 
calculated  to  destroy  the  Church  of  England,  and  her  sister 
Church  in  America,  it  evidently  becomes  your  bounden  duty 
to  support  them.  You  tell  me,  in  finishing  your  letter,  that 
you  give  me  your  name  without  fear  of  exposing  it.  Sorry 
I  am,  that  neither  my  friends,  nor  myself,  are  able  to  decy- 
pher  it.  Turned  every  way,  it  remains  unknown  to  us  all. 
Mine  is  that  of  your  sincere  well-wisher, 

CHARLES  HENRY  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

and  Presbyter  of  the  Apostolical  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  the  U.  S.  of  America. 


A 
LETTER 

TO 

THE   ROMAN   CATHOLICS 

OF  THE 

CITY  OF  WORCESTER, 

FROM 

THE     LATE     CHAPLAIN     OF     THAT      SOCIETY, 

MR.  C.  H.  WHARTON, 

STATING  THE  MOTIVES  WHICH  INDUCED  HIM  TO  RELINQUISH   THEIR 
COMMUNION,  AND  BECOME  A  MEMBER  OF  THE 
PROTESTANT  CHURCH. 


NEW-YORK;   REPUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  LONGWORTH,   1817. 


PHILADELPHIA:   WILLIAM  STAVELY,  1833. 


"  Give  me  understanding,  O  Lord,  and  I  shall  keep  thy  law  -.  Yea,  I  shall 
observe  it  with  my  whole  heart." 

"  Make  me  to  go  in  the  path  of  thy  commandments  ;  for  therein  do  I  de- 
light."—Psa/m  cxix.  34,  35. 

"  Any  private  man,  who  truly  believes  the  Scripture,  and  seriously  endea. 
vours  to  know  the  will  of  God,  and  to  do  it,  is  as  secure  as  the  visible 
Church,  more  secure  than  your  (the  Roman  Church,)  from  the  danger  of 
erring  in  fundamentals  :  for  it  is  impossible  that  any  man  so  qualified  should 
fall  into  any  error  which  to  him  will  prove  damnable.  For  God  requires  no 
more  of  any  man  to  his  salvation,  but  his  true  endeavour  to  be  saved.  Lastly* 
abiding  in  your  Churches  communion  is  so  far  from  securing  me  or  any  man 
from  damnable  error,  that  if  I  should  abide  in  it,  I  am  certain  I  could  not  be 
saved.  For  abide  in  it,  I  cannot,  without  professing  to  believe  your  entire 
doctrine  true :  profess  this  I  cannot,  but  I  must  lie  perpetually,  and  exulcer- 
ate  my  conscience.  And  though  your  errors  were  not  in  themselves  damna- 
ble, yet  to  resist  the  known  truth,  and  to  continue  in  the  profession  of  known 
errors  and  falsehood,  is  certainly  a  capital  sin,  and  of  great  affinity  with  the 
sin  which  shall  never  be  forgiven. — Chilling sworlh' s  Religion  of  Protestants 
a  safe  way  to  Salvation,  Aih  edition,  p.  215. 


A  LETTER,  &c. 


At  a  period  of  life,  when  discernment  should  be  ripcj 
when  passions  should  be  calm,  and  principles  settled,  if  a 
man  relinquish  the  opinions  of  his  youth  ;  if  he  break 
through  the  impressions  of  early  education,  and  the  habits 
of  thinking  with  which  he  has  been  long  familiar  ;  if  he 
abandon  connexions,  which  he  has  cherished  from  his  in- 
fancy, to  throw  himself  among  strangers  and  begin  the 
world  anew ;  surely  a  consciousness  of  duty,  or  some  un- 
worthy principle  must  be  the  spring  of  such  extraordinary 
conduct.  In  this  case,  a  decent  respect  to  his  own  charac- 
ter ;  to  the  connexions  which  he  quits  ;  and  those  which 
he  embraces,  seems  to  call  aloud  for  the  motives  of  so  im- 
portant a  change. 

I  am  well  aware  that  the  public  in  general  is  but  little 
concerned  at  the  fate  of  individuals.  Their  success,  their 
uneasiness,  their  struggles,  their  distress  are  felt  only  by  a 
few,  who,  formed  in  a  softer  mould,  take  delight  in  being 
interested  in  the  welfare  of  humanity.  To  such  of  those 
exalted  few  of  your  society,  or  of  any  other  description  of 
men,  who  may  chance  to  know  me,  I  beg  leave  to  address 
myself. 

It  is  not  my  design  to  enter  upon  the  wide  field  of  con- 
troversy, nor  to  combat  the  tenets  which  I  have  rejected, 
by  the  shafts  of  ridicule  or  the  full  power  of  argument. 
Truth  does  not  require,  nor  does  generosity  allow  us  to 
blacken  a  system  because  we  abandon  it.  What  appears 
conviction  to  me  may  seem  folly  to  you.  It  would  there- 
fore be  equally  absurd  and  unjust  to  censure  you  for 
opinions,  which  you  think  it  your  duty  to  admit,  as  for  you 
to  blame  7ne  for  rejecting  such,  as  /  deem  unsupportabl^ 


and  false.  Wherefore  my  sole  intention  is  to  send  you  an 
apology  for  my  oicn  conduct,  not  to  throw  the  most  distant 
reflection  upon  your's.  I  mean  to  countenance,  as  far  as  I 
am  able,  the  candour  of  those,  who  may  still  wish  to  es- 
teem me,  or  silence  in  some  degree,  the  voice  of  preju- 
dice, and  zeal  without  knowledge. 

If  nevertheless,  in  the  course  of  this  letter,  any  argu- 
ments should  occur,  that  may  tend  to  unhinge  the  security 
of  your  minds,  you  will  be  candid  enough  to  refer  it  to  the 
nature  of  the  subject,  not  to  any  intention  to  disturb  and 
perplex  you. 

Were  your  belief,  indeed,  grounded  solely  on  the  autho- 
rity, and  credit  of  your  teachers,  on  the  prejudices  of  edu- 
cation, on  the  dictates  of  fear,  the  allurements  of  interestj 
or  the  horrors  of  a  conscience  perpetually  harassed  with 
the  idea  of  disobedience  and  heresy,  you  probably  might 
be  staggered  to  see  one  of  your  ministers,  who,  you  had 
some  reason  to  imagine,  made  religion  his  study,  depart- 
ing from  a  system,  which  you  are  taught  to  venerate  as  in- 
fallible. But  if  your  faith  proceed  from  conviction,  and 
knowledge  of  the  cause,  if  it  be  the  result  of  mature  deli- 
beration, and  rational  inquiry,  you  can  have  nothing  to  fear 
even  from  a  deliberate  attempt  to  raise  doubts  in  your 
minds.  God  requires  no  more  of  any  man,  than  his  true 
and  hearty  endeavours  to  be  saved ;  and  their  endeavours 
can  never  be  ineffectual,  whose  reason  and  conscience  tell 
them,  they  are  in  the  way  to  salvation.  If  these  faithful 
guides  speak  such  a  language  to  your  hearts,  continue  to 
listen  to  their  saving  lessons  ;  continue  to  be  happy.  But 
let  no  security  whatever,  no  conviction  of  your  exclusive 
happiness  so  warp  your  understandings,  or  exulcerate  your 
hearts,  as  to  make  you  pronounce  condemnation  upon  those 
who,  after  consuming  years  in  unbiassed  inquiries,  can 
discover  no  unerring  authority  delegated  to  man,  nor  admit 
many  doctrines,  which  that  authority  proposes.  For  your 
sakes,  I  deprecate  such  unchristian  usage,  as  well  as  for 


Vny  own.  Yet  I  fear  alas  !  that  happy  period  is  still  at  a 
distance  when  the  charity,  that  hehaveth  not  unseemly,  that 
thinlceth  no  evil,  shall  compose  the  jarrings  of  religious  an- 
tipathy. The  pride  of  opinion  is  too  firmly  riveted  upon 
the  human  mind  to  admit  of  any  apology  from  those  who 
oppose  it.  A  desertion  from  a  favourite  system  bears  too 
hard  upon  the  abandoned  cause  to  be  easily  forgiven  :  and 
the  man,  who  is  bold  enough  to  adopt  such  a  measure,  will 
soon  find  himself  a  profane  object  of  abhorrence  to  the 
persons  whom  he  most  esteemed,  or  by  whom  he  had  been 
most  tenderly  beloved. 

For  it  is  a  lamentable  truth,  that  on  every  occasion  simi- 
lar to  the  present,  unjust  suspicions  and  illiberal  censure 
are  indulged  without  remorse.  They  find  their  way  into 
minds,  which,  in  other  respects,  are  accustomed  to  startle 
at  the  very  shadow  of  evil.  The  most  advanced  in  the  ha- 
bits of  Christian  meekness  and  forbearance,  too  often  mis- 
lake  the  workings  of  animosity  for  sentiments  of  pity  to- 
wards an  unfortunate  brother.  Men  of  sense  and  educa- 
tion too  often  make  a  merit  of  sacrificing- their  temper  and 
understanding  to  the  blind  ardour  of  their  zeal.  The  most 
eloquent  and  powerful  champion  of  the  English  Roman 
Catholics;  the  professed  advocate  for  unlimited  toleration, 
could  not  so  far  abandon  his  original  prejudices,  as  to  think 
favourably  of  any  one,  who  leaves  the  communion  he  be- 
longs to.*  What  grounds  have  I  therefore  to  expect  any 
partial  indulgence,  any  unusual  exertions  of  charity  and 
candour.  No,  my  fellow  Christians,  I  am  not  bold  enough 
to  flatter  myself,  that  such  will  be  my  lot.  U,  however, 
contrary  to  my  expectations,  any  among  you  should  be 
found  generous  enough  to  answer  the  voice  of  obloquy, 
and  assert  my  sincerity,  to  such  I  shall  ever  be  happy  to 

*  State  and  behaviour  of  tlie  English  Catholics,  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Bering- 
ton,  page  132.  In  the  second  edition  of  this  spirited  work  the  author  softens 
his  censure  of  those,  who  may  abandon  his  communion  but  the  origin^i 
sense  of  it  remains  nearly  the  same. 

a2 


make  my  gratitude  known.  Under  many  distressful  feel- 
ings, it  will  be  a  comfort  to  reflect,  that  my  slender  endea- 
vours have  operated  in  the  minds  of  some  among  you,  a  re- 
vokition  so  congenial  to  the  mild  spirit  of  the  Gospel. 

Perhaps,  were  you  acquainted  with  the  painful  struggles, 
which  this  public  declaration  of  my  sentiments  has  caused 
me,  your  pity  on  this  occasion  would  be  unmixed  with  re- 
sentment. You  would  see  the  cruel  impropriety  of  being 
anofry  with  a  man,  who  has  endeavoured  to  discover  the 
truth  of  your  doctrines,  and  striven  with  all  the  powers  of 
his  soul  to  believe  them ;  who  calls  heaven  to  witness,  that 
he  has  weighed  every  argument  for  and  against  your  mode 
of  religion,  with  the  same  impartiality,  as  if  the  world  con- 
tained no  Being  but  God  and  himself. 

I  pretend  not  to  any  uncommon  powers  of  reasoning,  or 
quickness  of  apprehension — I  feel  myself  subject  to  pre- 
judice and  mistake — I  am  too  well  acquainted  with  the  in- 
stability of  my  own  heart  to  boast  of  any  exemption  from 
the  usual  frailties  of  man.  But  among  the  weaknesses  to 
which  1  plead  guilty,  none,  I  trust,  ever  argued  indifference 
to  religion,  contempt  for  morality,  forgetfulness  of  honour, 
or  any  propension  to  that  lowest  stage  of  depravity,  which 
makes  men  act  habitually  the  parts  of  hypocrites. 

There  was  a  time,  when,  like  you,  I  gloried  in  my  reli- 
gion ;  1  daily  thanked  God,  that  /  icas  not,  like  other  men, 
heretics,  schismatics,  and  infidels;  I  subscribed  with  un- 
feigned sincerity  to  that  article  of  your  belief;  "  That  the 
Roman  Church  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  Churches, 
and  that  out  of  her  communion  no  salvation  can  be  ob- 
tained."* I  was  persuaded  that  the  arguments  of  her  ad- 
versaries were  lighter  than  chaff;  though,  at  the  same  time, 
I  should  have  deemed  it  an  impiety  to  weigh  them  in  the 
scales  of  impartiality  and    candour.     Common   sense   in- 

*  See  the  famous  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  the  present  standard  of  orthodoxy 
in  the  Roman  Church. 


formed  me,  that  inquiry  implied  a  doubt,  whilst  the  voice 
of  the  Church  was  loud  in  proclaiming,  that  to  doubt  of 
any  doctrinal  point  was  to  be  no  longer  a  Roman  Catholic. 
Under  such  a  dilemma,  the  inquisitive  faculties  of  the  mind 
must  remain  in  a  state  of  torpid  acquiescence,  or  be  ex- 
erted only  after  a  previous  and  definite  judgment  has  been 
passed  upon  the  truth,  or  falsity  of  the  doctrines  in  debate. 
I  was,  therefore,  soon  convinced,  that  no  consistent  Roman 
Catholic  can  be  a  candid  inquirer  in  matters  of  religion. 
He  cannot  set  out  with  that  indifference  to  the  truth  or 
falsity  of  a  tenet,  which  forms  the  leading  feature  of  ra- 
tional investigation;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  it  was 
painful  to  conclude,  that  an  honest  search  into  the  truths 
and  nature  of  religion,  could  be  any-wise  offensive  to  its 
merciful  author.  "  1  could  never  perceive  why  in  religious 
inquiries  our  reason  should  be  particularly  restrained ;  as 
the  subject  is  of  singular  importance,  it  seemed  that  even 
greater  latitude  should  be  allowed  us."*  To  "  prove  all 
things,  and  hold  fast  that  which  is  good,"  was  the  important 
advice  of  an  inspired  apostle. f  I  regarded  it  as  an  essen- 
tial duty  of  a  minister  of  religion  "  to  be  ready  always  to 
glee  an  answer  to  every  man  that  asketh  him  a  reason  of 
the  hope  that  is  in  him,  with  meekness  and  fear.":}:  In  a 
word,  the  positive  injunction  of  the  beloved  disciple  of 
Jesus.  "  not  to  believe  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits, 
whether  they  be  of  God,"§  was  a  sufficient  voucher  for  the 
lawfulness  and  expediency  of  inquiry. || 

My  connexions,  moreover,  with  many  valuable  Protest- 
ants, with  whom  I  lived  in  habits  of  intimacy  and  friend- 
ship, served  not  a  little  to  enlarge  my  ideas,  and  wean  my 

*  State  and  behaviour  of  the  Roman  Catholics,  page  139. 

t  1  Thess.  V.  21.    t  1  Pet.  iii.  15.    $  1  John  iv.  1. 

II  Not  to  mention  many  other  ancient  fathers,  who  advise  us  to  have  re- 
course to  the  Scriptures  in  all  our  doubts  about  religion,  I  will  only  lay  be- 
fore the  reader  two  remarkable  passages  of  St.  Chrysostom.  This  eloquent 
doctor  shall  speak  for  all  the  rest.    "When  you  shall  see  an  impious  heresy 


8 

mind  from  the  narrowness  of  a  system.  In  proportion  as  I 
became  acquainted  with  their  persons,  I  ceased  to  view 
their  principles  through  the  medium  of  prejudice.  If 
"  pure  and  undefiled  religion  with  God  and  the  Father"  be 
this,  "to  visit  widows  and  orphans  in  their  tribulation,  and 
to  keep  one's  self  unstained  from  this  world,"*  I  think  I 
know  several  who  have  a  good  claim  to  this  religion. 

which  is  the  army  of  anti-christ,  standing  in  the  holy  places  of  the  Church  i 
then  let  those  who  are  in  Judea  betake  themselves  to  the  mountains  ;  that  is, 
let  those  who  are  in  Christendom  betake  themselves  to  the  Scriptures.  For 
Christendom  is  the  true  Judea,  the  mountains  are  the  writings  of  tlie  prophets 
and  Apostles.  But  wherefore  oiighr  all  Christians,  at  this  time,  to  have  re- 
course to  the  Scriptures?  Because  at  this  time,  since  heresy  has  infected  the 
Churches,  the  divine  Scriptures  only  can  afford  a  proof  of  genuine  Christi- 
anity, and  a  refuge  to  those  who  are  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  truth  of  faith. 
Formerly  it  could  be  evinced  by  various  means,  which  was  the  true  Church 
of  Christ,  which  the  Church  of  the  Gentiles;  but  at  present  there  is  no  other 
method  left  to  those  who  are  willing  to  discover  the  true  Church  of  Christ 
but  by  the  Scriptures  onhj.  And  why  ?  Because  heresy  has  all  outward  ob- 
servances in  common  with  her.  If  a  man,  therefore,  be  desirous  of  knowing 
the  true  Church  of  Christ,  how  will  he  be  able  to  do  it  amidst  so  great  a  re- 
semblance, but  by  the  Scriptures  only  ?  Wherefore  our  Lord,  foreseeing  that 
such  a  great  confusion  of  things  would  take  place  in  the  latter  days,  orders 
the  Christians  who  are  in  Christendom,  and  desirous  of  arriving  at  the  firm- 
ness of  faith,  to  have  recourse  to  noihifig  but  the  Scriptures ;  for  if  they 
should  look  up  to  any  thing  else,  they  will  be  scandalized  and  will  perish,  as 
not  understanding  which  is  the  true  Church."  In  Matth.  c.  24.  ham.  49. 
Here  I  cannot  help  asking,  whether  such  would  now  be  the  advice  of  a  Ro- 
man Catholic  doctor  to  a  person  labouring  under  similar  doubts  ?  Would  not 
such  a  person  be  rather  discouraged  from  consulting  the  Scriptures,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  decisions  of  popes  and  councils  ?  Again,  m  2  ad.  Corinlh.  horn.  13. 
"  Let  us  not  attend  to  the  opinions  of  the  many  ;  but  let  us  inquire  into  the 
things  themselves.  For  it  is  absurd,  while  we  will  not  trust  other  people  in 
peciuiiary  matters,  but  choose  to  count  and  calculate  our  money  ourselves, 
that  in  affairs  of  much  greater  consequence,  we  should  implicitly  follow  the 
opinions  of  others;  especially,  as  we  are  possessed  of  the  most  exact  and  per- 
fect rule  and  measure,  by  which  we  may  regulate  our  several  inquiries,  I 
mean  the  regulations  of  the  divine  laws.  Wherefore  I  could  wish,  that  all 
of  you  would  neglect  what  this,  or  that  man  asserts  for  truth,  and  that  you 
would  investigate  all  these  things  in  the  Scriptures."  How  one  of  the  most 
enlightened  doctors  of  antitpiily  could  write  this  passage,  and  yet  regard  the 
doctrine  o[ private  jiulgment  as  heretical,  is  a  paradox,  which  all  the  fine-spun 
subtleties  of  modern  schoolmen  would  find  it  difficult  to  unravel. 
*  James  i.  27. 


It  soon  became  painful  to  regard  such  fellow  Christians, 
some  of  whom  are  very  near  my  heart,  as  straying  widely 
from  the  only  road  to  happiness,  by  refusing  to  submit  to  a 
Church,  out  of  the  pale  of  which  no  salvation  can  be  had. 
I  dismissed  the  cruel  idea  with  contempt  and  indignation ; 
but  with  it  a  leading  principle  of  my  former  belief  was 
abandoned.  I  know  that  some  of  your  late  ingenious 
apologists  in  England,  where  a  writer  must  affect  to  be 
liberal,  if  he  mean  to  be  read,  have  laboured  hard  to  palliate  - 
the  severity  of  this  unpopular  tenet.  Others  have  rejected 
it,  as  no  article  of  their  creed.  But  neither  the  sophistry 
of  the  former,  i.or  the  inconsistency  of  the  latter,  can  do 
away  a  doctrine  so  expressly  delivered  in  every  public 
catechism  and  profession  of  Faith.  Neither  transubstan- 
tiation,  nor  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Church,  are 
taught  more  explicitly  as  articles  of  faith,  than  the  impos- 
sibility of  being  saved  out  of  the  communion  of  this  Church, 
That  Roman  Catholics  profess  some  tenets  supernumerary, 
and  inimical  to  Christian  faith,  may  be  the  opinion  of  a 
Protestant:  but  that  Protestants  of  sense  and  education 
are  in  a  state  of  damnation,  must  be  the  religious  belief  oi 
a  consistent  Roman  Catholic,  Look  into  any  one  of  your 
own  writers  upon  controversy,  and  you  will  find  this  argu- 
ment repeatedly  made  use  of:  "  Protestants  allow  salvation 
to  Roman  Catholics;  but  Roman  Catholics  do  not  allow 
salvation  to  Protestants ;  therefore  the  Roman  Catholic  re- 
ligion is  the  safest  of  the  two." 

In  the  history  of  the  follies  and  depravity  of  man,  there 
does  not  occur  a  stronger  instance  of  both,  than  that  such 
an  article  should  be  interwoven  into  the  texture  of  his  be- 
lief. Nor  can  the  effrontery  of  false  reasoning  offer  a  greater 
insult  to  common  sense,  than  to  plead  the  uncharitableness 
of  a  tenet  as  an  argument  for  its  truth.  But  when  we  con^ 
sider  further,  that  this  barbarous  tenet  laid  the  first  founda^ 


10 

tions  for  the  cruel  heresy  of  the  persecutors,*  who,  under 
pretext  of  compelling-  men  into  the  only  road  to  heaven,  and 
saving  their  souls,  inflicted  on  them  torments,  which  huma- 
nity shudders  to  relate,  that,  notwithstanding  the  enormi- 
ties occasioned  by  this  tenet,  it  was  promulged  under  hor- 
rid anathemas  by  the  pretended  vicar  of  the  meek  and 
humble  Jesus,  was  adopted  by  Christian  princes  and 
bishops,  enforced  by  canonized  saints  with  all  the  horrors 
of  the  inquisition,t  justified  by  law,  and  sanctified  in  pul- 
pits:  the  mind  is  bewildered  in  the  contemplation  of  this 
mystery  of  iniqidfy.  The  wild  enthusiasm  that  first  broach- 
ed such  a  doctrine,  and  the  stupid  credulity  that  believed 
it,  is  equally  a  matter  of  indignation  and  astonishment. 
You  will  pardon  the  warmth  with  which  I  speak  upon  this 
mischievous  tenet:  its  baneful  influence  upon  the  dearest 
interests  of  society,  and  the  happiness  of  individuals,  calls 
for  every  exertion  to  exhibit  its  deformity  and  falsehood. 

Nor  will  the  colours  of  this  picture,  hideous  as  they  are, 
reflect  any  odium  upon  you  in  the  eyes  of  your  fellow  sub- 
jects. From  my  own  observation  I  am  happy  to  assure 
them,  that  the  Roman  Church  in  this,  as  well  as  in  many 
other  particulars,  is  daily  undergoing  a  silent  reformation. 
The  dark  monsters  of  persecution  and  bigotry  are  retreat- 
ing gradually  before  the  light  of  genuine  religion  and  phi- 
losophy. Mankind  begin  to  blush,  that  near  fifteen  centu- 
ries have  been  necessary  to  convince  them,  that  humanity 
and  toleration  are  essential  branches  of  the  religion  of 
Jesus.  Among  you,  few  are  apprized  of  the  mischiefs  with 
which  the  tenet  I  am  speaking  of  is  pregnant.  The  more 
enlightened  reject,  or  explain  it  away.     Even  the  most  or- 


*  If  any  doctrine  can  be  contrary  to  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  conse- 
quently heretical,  it  must  be  that  which  teaches  the  justice  of  persecution  for 
conscience  sake.  If  it  be  said  that  this  doctrine  has  been  taught  and  prac- 
tised by  Protestants,  my  answer  is,  that  among  Protestant  Catholics,  as  well  aa 
among  Roman  Catholics,  heresies  may  arise. 

t  Str  Dorainick  was  the  first  inquisitor-general  against  the  Albigenses. 


11 

thodox  give  it  so  faint  an  assent,  that,  except  among  a  few 
of  unusual  ignorance  and  bigotry,  its  influence  is  but  tri- 
fling upon  the  harmony  of  society. 

The  absurdity  and  uncharitableness  of  believing  with  the 
assent  of  faith,  that  the  members  of  no  Christian  Church  but 
our  own  can  be  saved,  is,  therefore,  to  me  quite  palpable  and 
evideat.  Yet  no  sooner  do  reason  and  religion  sap  the  foun- 
dations of  this  master-error,  than  the  fabric  raised  upon  it 
must  totter  and  fall.  Even  the  boasted  infallibility  of  a 
living  authority  is  no  more,  when  salvation  is  allowed  to 
Christians  who  reject  such  a  privilege.  For,  whoever  ad- 
mits this  authority  as  an  undoubted  article  of  Christian  re- 
ligion, must  necessarily  pronounce  condemnation  upon 
those  who  wilfully  reject  it.  To  refuse  passing  such  a  sen- 
tence amounts  to  a  tacit  renunciation  of  the  authority  itself. 
But  in  this,  as  in  many  other  instances,  it  is  happy  for  man- 
kind, that  consistency  of  opinion  is  not  always  to  be  found. 
The  uncorrupted  feelings  of  the  human  heart  will  frequent- 
ly set  consequences  at  defiance,  while  their  pernicious 
principles  are  deemed  sacred  and  irrefragable.  This  must 
always  be  the  case  with  the  humane  and  virtuous,  who 
ground  their  belief  upon  authority  alone  ;  who  seldom  in- 
quire into  the  relations  which  the  several  branches  of  a 
system  bear  to  each  other ;  or  who,  though  qualified  by 
nature  and  education,  esteem  it  an  impiety  to  think  for 
themselves,  or  to  harbour  the  least  suspicion  concerning 
notions  which  they  have  been  taught  from  their  infancy  to 
regard  as  infallible. 

For  my  own  part,  no  sooner  had  I  relinquished  this  un- 
warrantable tenet,  than  doubts  began  to  arise  concerning 
some  others,  with  which  it  is  so  nearly  connected.  I  expe- 
rienced very  singular  satisfaction  in  regarding  my  Protest- 
ant brethren  as  fellow-travellers  in  the  same  road  to  happi- 
ness, as  entitled  to  the  same  grace  and  benefits  of  redemp- 
tion with  myself.  In  proportion  as  the  dead  weight  of  au- 
thority  was  removed,  the  mind  recovered  its  natural  spring 


12 

and  energy,  and  indulged  itself  in  the  warm  feelings  of  ex« 
panded  benevolence,  which  had  hitherto  been  chilled  by 
early  infusions  of  bigotry.  To  trace  each  religious  truth  to 
its  genuine  sources  of  reason  and  revelation,  I  considered 
as  the  most  noble  and  important  employment  that  can  possi- 
bly occupy  the  faculties  of  man. 

Scarcely,  however,  had  I  entered  upon  this  glorious  task, 
when  I  felt  the  whole  force  of  Solomon's  observation  :  that 
"  he  who  increaseth  wisdom,  increaseth  sorrow."  I  foresaw 
the  difficulties  to  which  this  undertaking  would  expose  me. 
I  knev/,  that  to  seek  religious  information  in  the  writings 
of  Protestants,  was  to  incur  the  severest  censures  of  the 
Church  I  belonged  to.*  I  was  persuaded,  that  from  such 
an  inquiry  doubts  would  naturally  arise,  that  might  destroy 
the  texture  of  my  former  belief:  and  that  I  was  bringing 
upon  myself  a  series  of  long  and  painful  conflicts  between 
ancient  habits  of  thinking  and  future  conviction.  As  I  was 
determined  to  acquiesce  ultimately  in  the  authority  of  reve- 
lation, the  light  of  reason,  and  the  dictates  of  conscience,  I 
anticipated  in  my  mind  the  various  disagreeable  and  dis- 
tressful sensations,  which  a  dereliction  of  former  principles 
would  unavoidably  occasion.  The  loss  of  reputation  with 
a  respectable  set  of  people,  who,  from  calling  me  friend, 
would  style  me  an  apostate  ;  the  imputation  of  inconstancy  ; 
the  suspicions  attending  the  very  name  of  convert,  which, 
with  some  o(  all  parties,  is  become  a  term  of  reproach  ;  the 
mortification,  affliclion,  and  perhaps  aversion  of  kind  and 
tender  relations,  who  used  to  regard  me  as  doing  some  cre- 
dit to  my  connexions ;  pity  from  the  benevolent  and  abuse 
from  the  zealous,  were  the  certain  consequences  of  a  change 

*  Whoever  reads  any  books  written  by  heretics,  (or  Protestants,)  contain- 
ing heresy,  or  treating  about  religion,  without  permission  of  the  holy  See,  by 
virtue  of  the  Bulla  Ccenoe,  incurs  excommunication  ipso  facto.  Whoever 
retains,  prints,  or  defends  them,  is  subject  to  the  same  dismal  penalty.  See 
Arsdekiri's  Theology,  resolutiones  practices  ad  hceresim  edit.  Antwerp,  page 
147.     And  every  Roman  Catholic  divine. 


13 

in  ray  principles.  To  a  mind  not  callous  to  the  importance 
of  a  good  name,  to  the  endearments  of  friendship,  to  the 
affections  of  consanguinity,  and  disclaiming  any  pretensions 
to  the  apathy  of  a  stoic,  such  bitter  reflections  could  by  no 
means  be  indifferent.  A  dreary  prospect  opening  at  the 
same  time  from  a  different  quarter,  served  not  a  little  to 
enhance  the  gloomy  prospect  before  me.  Held  back  from 
my  native  country  and  property  by  a  long,  distressful,  and 
iniquitous  war,*  destitute  of  connexions,  to  whom  I  might 
look  up  for  assistance,  and  with  a  constitution  that  promised 
but  a  slender  share  of  health,  I  could  not  reasonably  hope 
for  any  situation  in  life  equally  eligible  with  that  which  I 
might  determine  to  relinquish.     A  decent  appointment,  a 


*  These  sentiments  began  to  arise,  when  there  was  little  probability  of  the 
author  being  able  to  return  quickly  to  his  native  country  in  North  America, 
where  his  whole  property  lies.  He  was  sent  to  Europe  when  very  young, 
and  after  passing  through  some  years  of  very  rigid  discipline  in  a  foreign 
academy,  secluded  from  society,  and  debarred  from  every  species  of  infor- 
mation that  could  make  him  acquainted  with  himself  or  the  world,  he  was 
induced  to  take  orders  among  a  body  of  men  equally  distinguished  by  their 
eminence  and  their  fall.  Whatever  aspersions  they  may  lie  under  of  ambi- 
tion, or  avarice,  the  first  raised  very  few  of  them  to  any  dignities  in  the 
Church,  nor  was  the  second  directed  in  procuring  the  delicacies  that  pamper 
the  holy  indolence  of  man)'  other  conventuals.  The  scanty  revenues  of 
their  establishments  have  been  discovered  ;  the  phantom  of  their  imaginary 
treasures  is  no  more,  and  their  bitterest  enemies  have  never  impeached  the 
purity  of  their  morals.  Cut  off  by  the  power,  in  defence  of  which  they  were 
ever  prodigal  of  their  labours  and  their  blood,  they  fell  pitied  by  many, 
who  abhorred  the  object  of  their  zeal ;  and  must  be  considered  by  all,  as  an 
additional  monument  of  the  ingratitude  and  tyranny  of  Rome.  Under  the 
eye  of  the  pretended  father  of  the  faithful,  they  were  oppressed  by  calumny, 
and  stript  of  their  possessions,  without  being  allowed  to  appeal  to  the  tribu- 
nal of  the  public,  or  the  laws  of  their  country.  The  Bull  that  pronounced 
the  suppression  of  their  order,  forbids  them,  or  their  friends,  under  pain  of 
excommunication,  to  utter  or  vwite  a  syllable  in  their  defence.  Such  is  the 
tender  mercy  and  justice  of  a  Church,  which  styles  hei-self  the  holy  mother, 
and  mistress  of  all  others.  The  humane  reader  will  excuse  this  slender  tri- 
bute of  gratitude,  which  the  author  pays  to  the  memory  of  an  unfortunate 
society,  in  which  he  received  the  first  lessons  of  virtue,  and  principles  of  re- 
ligion. The  first,  he  trusts,  he  shall  never  forget;  although  conviction 
obliges  him  to  abandon  some  of  the  latter. 

B 


14 

comfortable  house  in  a  beautiful  and  elegant  city,  and  n 
plentiful  table,  with  a  virtuous,  disinterested  colleague, were 
advantages  which  I  could  hardly  meet  with  elsewhere. 
Neither  ambition,  avarice,  nor  pleasure,  could  have  any 
charms  for  me.  The  humble  walk  of  a  Roman  Catholic 
missionary,  and  the  indigent  obscurity  usually  attending  his 
vocation  in  England,  had  taught  me  early  in  life  to  contract 
my  expectations  within  very  narrow  limits.  No  opening 
either  to  dignities  or  affluence  could  make  any  change,  at 
this  time,  on  the  temper  of  my  mind  ;  nor  could  I  be  influ- 
enced in  any  degree  by  the  allurements  of  pleasure.  How- 
ever I  might  depart  from  the  principles  of  my  belief,  the 
code  of  my  morality  was  to  remain  always  the  same.  No 
inquiry  can  alter  the  eternal  laws  of  virtue ;  no  sophistry 
can  justify  the  cravings  of  vice.  If  any  should  say,  (and  I 
expect  it  will  be  said,)  that  I  was  tired  of  the  law  which 
obliged  me  to  live  single,  and  was  willing  to  unite  myself 
to  a  more  indulgent  community,  I  can  only  refer  such  de- 
claimers  to  the  littleness  of  their  own  minds,  where,  per- 
haps, they  will  discover  the  ungenerous  source  of  so  illibe- 
ral a  reflection.  I  make  no  scruple,  indeed,  here  publicly 
to  acknowledge,  that  for  some  time  back,  I  have  considered 
the  law  of  celibacy  as  a  cruel  usurpation  of  the  unalienable 
rights  of  nature,  as  unwarantable  in  its  principle,  inadequate 
to  its  object,  and  dreadful  in  its  consequences.  The  various 
mischiefs  arising  from  it  must  be  obvious  to  every  man,  who 
will  allow  himself  to  reflect  dispassionately  upon  this  very 
absurd  and  tyrannical  institution.*  Had  this,  however, 
been  the  only  exceptional  injunction  of  your  Church,  I  think 
I  can  declare  before  the  God  who  is  to  judge  me,  that  as  I 
should  have  found  it  my  interest,  so  I  should  have  thought 
it  my  duty  not  to  abandon  her  communion.  No  action  of 
my  life  ever  authorized  you  to  suspect,  that  any  gratification 

*7Tie  curious  reader  will  find  this  subject  treated  with  much  impar- 
tiality and  erudition  in  an  Essay  on  the  Law  of  Celilacy,  &c.  Printed  at 
Worcester  in  1781 ,  and  sold  by  Rivington  and  Bew,  London. 


15 

whatever  could  induce  me  to  part  deliberately  with  my 
peace  of  mind,  my  honour,  and  my  conscience.  How  cir- 
cumstances may  determine  me  to  act,  in  this  particular,  is 
very  uncertain  at  present ;  this  however  is  evident,  that 
when  a  person  withdraws  himself  publicly  from  any  society, 
the  discipline  of  that  society  must  cease  to  be  binding. 

Withheld  by  the  difficulties  which  I  have  mentioned  on 
the  one  hand,  urged  on  by  the  irresistible  force  of  truth 
on  the  other,  I  remained  for  some  time  in  a  state  of  wretch- 
ed, though  1  confide,  not  guilty  suspense.  To  sit  down 
contented  with  the  faith  of  the  poor  collier,  so  highly  ap- 
preciated by  Roman  Catholic  ascetics,  and  by  Bellarmin 
himself;*  who,  when  questioned  about  his  creed,  answer- 
ed, "  that  he  believed  what  the  Church  believed,  and  that 
the  Church  believed  what  he  believed,"  appeared  such  an 
insult  upon  reason,  that  I  could  by  no  means  digest  it.  If 
a  man's  belief  be  not  rational ;  if  he  submit  to  human  au- 
thority without  weighing  or  understanding  the  doctrines 
which  it  inculcates,  this  belief  is  not  faith — it  is  credu- 
lity ;  it  is  weakness.  With  equal  merit  might  he  be  a  Jew, 
a  mussulman,  or  an  idolater,  as  each  of  these  grounds  his 
principles  upon  authority,  whose  decrees  he  deems  sacred, 
whilst  he  neglects  to  examine  them. 

Convinced,  at  length,  that  in  my  circumstances^  inquiry 

*  De  arte  bene  moriendi,  lib.  2.  cap.  9. 

tThey  whom  neither  education,  nor  abilities,  nor  leisure,  qualify  to  enter 
upon  such  inquiries,  must  rely  principally  on  the  authority  of  their  teachers. 
Turbam,  non  intelligendi  vivacitas,  sed  credendi  simplicitas  tutissimamfacit. 
5.  Aug.  contra  epis.  Tiind.  I  beg  leave  to  trans-cribe  in  this  place  the  rule 
which  the  present  learned  and  pious  bishop  of  Chester  [Porteus,]  lays 
down  for  the  lower  sort  of  people.  "  Let  each  man,"  says  he,  "  improve  his 
own  judgment,  and  increase  his  own  knowledge  as  much  as  he  can  :  ^nd  be 
fully  assured,  that  God  will  expect  no  more.  In  matters  for  which  he  must 
rely  on  authority,  let  him  trust  those  who,  by  encouraging  free  inquiry,  ap- 
pear to  love  truth,  rather  than  such  as,  by  requiring  all  their  doctrines  to  be 
implicitly  obeyed,  seem  conscious,  that  they  will  not  bear  to  be  freely  tried. 
But  never  let  him  prefer  any  authority  to  that,  which  is  the  highest  autho- 
jiiy,  the  written  word  of  God.    This,  therefore,  let  us  all  carefully  studjr, 


16 

was  become  a  duty,  daily  matter  springing  up  for  doubting 
of  former  notions  ;  persuaded  that  cold  and  negative  assent 
was  insincere  and  nugatory  ;  and  confident,  that  the  grace 
of  God  would  accompany  an  attentive  and  upright  pursuit 
after  truth,  I  determined  resolutely  to  discard  all  inferior 
considerations,  and  to  be  influenced  solely  by  the  result  of 
my  researches. 

With  this  view,  I  had  immediate  recourse  to  the  fountains 
of  information,  which  the  bounty  of  Providence  has  laid 
open  to  man.  I  read,  I  studied,  I  pondered  the  old  and 
new  Testament  with  unremitting  attention.  Jn  the  latter 
it  was  easy  to  discover  the  great  fundamental  and  necessary 
doctrines  of  the  Christian  dispensation.  In  both  there  ap- 
peared a  perfect  code  of  morality  calculated  to  render  u» 
virtuous  and  happy.  But  I  could  find  in  neither  the  dis- 
criminating doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church. 

After  the  volumes  that  have  been  written  by  Protestant 
divines,  to  show  the  slender  claim  of  these  doctrines  to  so 
sacred  an  origin,  it  would  be  useless  to  dwell  any  longer 
upon  the  subject.  It  is,  besides,  a  matter  of  so  extensive 
a  nature,  that  it  would  carry  me  infinitely  beyond  the  li- 
mits of  this  short  address.  It  would  plunge  me  headlong 
into  the  ocean  of  controversy,  which,  as  I  stated  above,  it 
is  my  wish  to  avoid.  Moreover,  it  must  be  obvious  to  every 
man,  who  is  but  moderately  acquainted  with  Roman  Ca- 
tholic polemics,  that  Protestant  writers  have  thrown  away 
much  erudition  and  ingenuity  in  refuting  pretensions, 
which  were  never  claimed  by  their  most  learned  opponents 
— I  say  the  most  celebrated  controvertists  of  the  Roman 
Church  acknowledge,  that  some  of  her  essential  tenets  are 
not  to  be  found  a?  oZZin  the  Scriptures,  or  are  delivered  in 

and  not  doubt,  but  that  whatever  things  in  it  are  necessary  to  be  believed, 
are  easy  to  be  understood.  This  let  us  rely  on,  and  trust  to  its  truth,  when 
it  declares  itself  "  able  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation,  perfectly  and 
thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works."  2  Tim.  iii.  17.  Brief  cov/utQtion 
of  the  errors  of  the  Church  of  Rome.    1782. 


17 

them  with  great  obscurity.  This,  perhaps,  is  a  fact  which 
you  never  suspected  ;  I  beg  leave,  therefore,  to  instance  it 
b  riefly  in  a  few  particulars. 

Transubstantiation,  or  "  the  conversion  of  the  whole  sub- 
stance of  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the  whole  substance 
of  wine  into  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,"  is  an  essential  ar- 
ticle of  the  Roman  Catholic  religion.  But  is  this  article 
clearly  and  evidently  delivered  in  any  passage  of  the  Bible? 
Hear  what  your  own  most  eminent  doctors  have  written 
upon  the  subject :  "  Scotus  says,  that  there  is  no  text  of  the 
Scripture  so  explicit,  as  evidently  to  claim  our  assent  (o 
transubstantiation,  without  the  decision  of  the  Church  ;  and 
this  is  not  at  all  improbable  :  for  although  Scripture  may 
appear  tons  so  evident,  as  to  command  the  belief  of  a  dis- 
passionate man,  yet  it  may  be  reasonably  doubted  whether 
it  be  so  in  reality,  since  men  of  the  greatest  learning  and 
penetration,  among  whom  Scotus  is  eminently  conspicuous, 
have  thought  otherwise."*  The  elegant  and  learned  Mel- 
chior  Canus,  bishop  of  the  Canaries,  mentioning  "  several 
particulars  belonging  to  faith,  which  are  not  expressly  de- 
livered in  the  Scriptures,"  instances,  among  others,  *'  the 
change  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ."!  Alphonsus  de  Castro,  an  orthodox  and  mighty 
name  in  scholastic  theology,  has  these  remarkable  words  : 
*'  Indulgences  are  not  to  be  despised,  because  the  use  of 
them  was  lately  introduced  into  the  Church.  Many  things 
are  known  to  the  moderns,  of  which  ancient  writers  were 
totally  ignorant.  For  in  old  authors,  there  is  seldom  any 
mention  made  of  the  transubstantiation  of  the  bread  into 
the  body  of  Christ.":}: 

Since  the  decision  of  the  Council  of  Trent,  it  is  become 
an  article  of  your  faith,  "  that  a  priest  has  power  to  forgive 
sins."     But  Peter  Lombard,  the  famous  master  of  the  sen- 

*  Bellarm.  de  Euch.  1.  3.  cap.  23.    t  Loc.  commun.  lib.  3.  fund.  2.   |  Vocab. 
indulg. 

b2 


16 

tenceSf  the  Newton,  the  Aristotle  of  scholastic  divines,  was 
so  far  from  discovering  this  prerogative  in  the  Scriptures, 
that  he  rejects  it  at  large,  and  is  supported  in  his  opinion 
by  almost  all  the  ancient  schoolmen  of  his  time.*  Their 
doctrine  is  thus  compendiously  delivered  by  cardinal  Hugo, 
who  lived  at  that  period  :  "  the  priest  cannot  bind  or  loosen 
the  sinner  with  or  from  the  bond  of  the  fault,  or  the  pu- 
nishment :  but  only  declare  him  to  be  bound,  or  loosened: 
as  the  Levitical  priest  did  not  infect,  or  cleanse  the  leper, 
but  only  declared  him  infected  or  clean. ''f 

You  will  not,  I  presume,  question  the  authority  of  Fisher, 
the  famous  bishop  of  Rochester,  who  sealed  with  his  blood 
the  doctrines  he  professed.     Hear  how  faintly  he  discovers 
the  revelation  of  purgatory  in  the   Scriptures.     "As  it  is 
necessary,"  says  he,  "  that  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  should 
be  known  by  all,  we  must  presume ^  that  it  can  be  proved  by 
Scripture. ":|:     Hence  it  follows,  according  to  this  learned 
prelate,  that  unless  the   tenet  be  found  in   the  Bible,  it  is 
not  necessary  that  it  should  be  known   to  all    men.     But 
supposing  it  to  be  an  essential   point  of  the  Christian  reli- 
gion, from  what  passage  of  the  Scripture  can  it  possibly  be 
proved  ?     The  books  of  Maccabees  were  not  acknowledged 
for  canonical  Scriptures  by   St.  Hierom,  Rufinus,  Epipha- 
nius,  Athanasius,   Gregory,   and  many  other  ancient  and 
eminent  fathers.     And  the  texts  usually  alleged  from  other 
parts  of  the  Bible,§  have  been  all  rejected  so  expressly  by 
several  of  your  own   doctors,  that  an  impartial  man  may 
safely  regard  them   as  very  doubtful  sources  of  this  extra- 
ordinary tenet.     That  the  Greek  Church  could   never  dis- 
cover the  proofs  for  purgatory  in  the  Scriptures,   and   that 
even  the  Churches  of  the  West  have   lately   become  ac- 
quainted with  these  cleansing  flames,  is  the  decided  opin- 

*  Lib.  4.  sentent.  dist.  8.  e.  f.  t  In  Matt.  16.  X  Art.  18.  adversus  Luth. 
^  Matt.  V.  22,  25.  Luc.  xvi.  9.  Act  ii.  24.  1  Cor.  iii.  11.  1  Cor.  xv.  1. 
Peter  iii.  19. 


19 

ion  of  the  prelate  above  mentioned.  "  Let  any  man,"  says 
he,  "  read  the  comments  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  and,  in  my 
opinion,  he  will  find  no  mention  of  purgatory,  or  very 
rarely.  Neither  was  the  truth  of  this  matter  known  to  all 
the  Latins  at  once,  but  only  by  degrees,  pedetentimy*  And 
again,  "  to  this  very  day  purgatory  is  not  believed  by  the 

Greeks."t 

I  could  easily  prosecute  this  argument  through  a  variety 
of  instances  ;  I  could  show  you,  that  some  of  your  most  ce- 
lebrated divines  have  acknowledged,  that  neither  the  supre- 
macy of  the  Roman  Church,  nor  the  invocation  of  saints^ 
nor  the  worship  of  images,  nor  the  precise  number  oi  seven 
sacraments,  with  several  other  important  articles  of  your 
communion,  can  be  proved  from  the  Scriptures.  Was  it 
therefore  unreasonable  to  assert,  that  /could  never  discover 
them  there,  since  they  escaped  the  notice  of  such  acute 
and  interested  inquirers? 

It  becomes,  then,  necessary  to  acknowledge,  that  these 
discriminating  doctrines  derive  their  whole  claim  to  your 
assent  from  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church  you  be- 
long to.  Or,  in  the  words  of  your  catechism,  "  You  must 
believe  these  things,  because  God  has  revealed  them  to  his 
infallible  Church."  But  where  is  this  revelation  to  be  met 
with  ?  Not  in  the  Scriptures,  as  you  have  alreedy  seen. 
God,  therefore,  has  revealed  these  points  by  unv^ritten  tra- 
ditions. But  how  can  I  know,  that  such  traditions  are  from 
God?  If  you  answer  me,  that  the  infallible  authority  of 
the  Church  has  pronounced  them  to  be  so ;  then  the  whole 
matter  rests  ultimately  upon  this  infallible  authority.  This 
being  once  admitted,  all  controversy  must  cease  :  but  if  it 
be  rejected,  then  must  the  only  rule  of  our  faith  be  looked 
for  in  the  Bible. 

I  am  not  ashamed  to  confess,  that  it  was  this  claim  to  in- 
fallibility, which  prevented  me  so  long  from  examining  the 

*  Ibidem.  t  Ibidem- 


20 

tenets  of  the  Roman  Church.  Sheltered  under  the  garb  of 
so  gorgeous  a  prerogative,  impressed  upon  the  yielding 
mind  of  youth  by  men  of  sense  and  virtue  ;  backed,  more- 
over, by  the  splendour  of  supposed  miracles,  and  the  hor- 
rors of  anathemas,  opinions  the  most  absurd  and  contradic- 
tory must  frequently  dazzle  and  overawe  the  understanding. 
Amidst  the  fascinating  glare  of  so  mighty  a  privilege  the 
eye  of  reason  becomes  dim  and  inactive — nothing  can  dis- 
pel the  darkening  film,  but  the  more  steady  and  powerful 
irradiations  of  truth;  these,  however,  are  so  often  blunted 
by  the  mists  of  ignorance,  the  enchantment  of  prejudice, 
by  indolence,  or  the  fear  of  disturbing  ancient  notions,  that 
they  only  find  their  way  into  the  minds  of  a  few,  who  are- 
bold  enough  to  embrace  the  hardihood  of  wisdom,  and  dis- 
regard all  authority  that  clashes  with  reason.* 

Should  it  be  said,  that  reason  tells  me  to  submit  to  an 
infallible  Church — my  answer  is,  that  reason  tells  me  also, 
that  such  submission  is  weakness,  unless  this  infdlibility 
be  demonstrated.     Show  me  the  proofs  of  this  pretension 
and  if  I  do  not  admit  them  with  every  faculty  of  my  soul 
you  have  my  leave  to  brand  me  with  the  pride  of  Lucifer 
Should  you   urge,  that    reason    must  tell    every   unpreju 
diced  man,  that  some  texts  in  holy  writ  go  to  prove  the  in 
fallibility  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  may  I  not  answer 
with  confidence,  that  reason  and  experience  tell  me  much 
more   forcibly,    that   several   articles    are    incredible   and 
groundless,  which  rest  solely  on  that  infallibility?     Does 
not  reason,  for  instance,  assure  me  with  greater  evidence, 
that  the  Almighty  requires  not  our  belief  of  a  doctrine, 
which  stands  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  only  means  he 
has  allowed  us  of  arriving  at  truth — I  mean  our  senses  and 
our  understandings  ?     Do  a  few  controverted  texts  of  the 

*  "  Reason  tells  those  who  are  virtuous  and  truly  philosophers  to  honour 
and  appreciate  truth  only ;  and  not  to  suffer  themselves  to  be  enslaved  to 
the  opinions  of  the  ancients,  if  they  be  erroneous."  JusUnus  Martyr,  ApcL 
»ec.  2. 


21 

Scripture  make  infallibility  as  evident  to  reason,  as  it  is 
plain  to  the  most  ordinary  capacity,  that  two  bodies  cannot 
be  in  the  same  place  at  once  ;  that  the  same  body  cannot  be 
in  a  million  of  different  places  at  the  same  time;  that 
whiteness  cannot  exist  without  a  body  that  is  white;  nor 
weight  without  a  body  that  is  heavy;  nor  liquifaction  with- 
out a  body  that  is  liquid ;  that  the  eternal  God  is  not  to  be 
shut  up  in  boxes,  nor  devoured  corporally  by  vermin?* 
Does  not  reason  assure  me  with  greater  evidence,  that  no 
creature  is  to  be  invocated,  and  honoured  with  religious 
worship ;  that  public  service  ought  not  to  be  performed  in 
an  unknown  language ;  that  the  beloved  servants  and 
friends  of  God  will  not  be  punished  after  death- in  the  flames 
of  purgatory;  that  there  is  no  common  store-house,  in 
which  are  laid  up  the  superfluous  merits  of  the  saints,  to  be 
drawn  from  thence  by  the  pope,  and  applied,  as  he  thinks 
proper,  to  the  benefit  of  the  living  and  the  dead  ?  Such  to 
me  is  the  language  of  reason,  which  was  never  yet  rejected 
with  impunity — she  will  be  heard — she  must  be  respected 
—her  claim  to  our  reverence  and  attention,  arises  from  the 

*  These  absurdities  and  contradictions,  with  many  others,  follow  evidently 
from  the  doctrine  of  transiibslantiation.  I  beg  leave  to  mention  in  this  place 
two  negative  arguments,  which  seem  to  prove  to  a  demonstration,  that  tran- 
substantiation  was  unknown  to  the  ancient  Church.  The  first  is  this.  "If 
the  ancient  Church  had  believed  this  doctrine,  and  paid  the  same  supreme 
adoration  to  the  holy  sacrament,  as  Roman  Catholics  now  do ;  is  it  not  proba- 
ble, nay,  is  it  not  evident,  that  this  tenet  and  practice  would  have  been 
urged  by  the  Catholics  against  the  Arians,  as  an  incontestible  proof  of  the 
divinity  of  Christ  ?  This  argument,  however,  was  never  alleged  by  any  one 
of  the  numerous  and  learned  doctors,  during  the  Arian  controversy.  A  con- 
vincing proof  that  such  an  argument  was  unknown."  Again,  "  Is  it  not  rea- 
sonable to  think,  that  the  heathen  writers,  among  their  many  charges 
against  the  ancient  Christians,  would  have  retorted  upon  the77i  the  accusation 
of  idolatry  in  adoring  a  bit  of  bread,  in  reserving  their  God  in  gold  and  sil- 
ver chalices,  boxes,  <fec.  had  the  practice  or  belief  of  the  Church  given  any 
room  for  so  plausible  an  argument?"  I  beg  leave  to  add,  moreover,  that 
the  fathers  of  the  second  Council  of  Nice  expressly  confirm  the  opinion  that 
Christ's  body  in  heaven  is  not  flesh  and  blood  :  how,  therefore,  can  bread  and 
wine  be  changed  into  his  body,  if  they  become  flesh  and  blood  ?  See  L'Abb« 
Cone.  Nic.  2  Act.  T.  6.  page  541. 


22 

superiority  of  her  counsels  to  those  of  fellow-mortals : — 
Every  human  being  must  listen  to  her  voice,  or  cease  to  be 
rational.  Created  for  us,  and  acting  within  us,  she  speaks 
to  us  after  the  manner  best  suited  to  our  several  characters, 
abilities  and  duties.  Becojning  all  to  all,  she  addresses  her- 
self with  gentleness  to  some,  and  with  energy  to  others ; 
but  when  passions  are  silent,  and  prejudice  suspended,  her 
language  must  ever  be  the  language  of  truth.  Religion  and 
reason  can  never  be  at  variance,  because  the  most  rational 
religion  must  always  be  the  best.  You  remain  Roman  Ca- 
tholics, because  you  think  your  reason  tells  you,  that  yours 
alone  is  the  true  Church  of  Christ.  You  think  it  reasonable 
to  believe,  that  at  these  words,  "This  is  my  body,"  pro- 
nounced by  a  priest,  a  bit  of  bread  is  changed  into  the  true 
natural  body  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  is  to  be  adored  as  the 
eternal  God,  because  your  reason  convinces  you,  that  Christ 
spoke  these  words  in  a  literal  sense^  and  because  your 
Church  understands  them  in  this  manner.  But  when  rea- 
son assures  me,  that  innumerable  arguments  evince  their 
meaning  to  he  figurative;  am  I  not  bound  to  open  my  mind 
to  the  light  of  conviction,  and  discard  the  infallibility  which 
enforces  the  absurdities  of  the  opposite  opinion  7 

If  from  reason  you  appeal  to  revelation,  the  plea  to  infalli- 
bility will  be  found  equally  unsupported.  You  will  tell 
me,  doubtless,  that  the  ancient  fathers  unardmously  inter- 
pret some  scriptural  passages  in  this  sense.  But,  I  appre- 
hend, that  upon  inquiry,  such  an  assertion  would  appear 
very  hazarded  indeed.  Let  an  iinpartial  man  read  the 
fathers  upon  this,  and  some  other  subjects,  and  I  will 
defy  him  to  declare,  that  he  has  met  with  this  boasted  uni- 
formity among  them.  But  the  Catholic  Church  has  decreed 
such  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  fathers,  and  every  Christian 
is  bound  to  acquiesce  in  her  decisions.  So  that  in  fact,  the 
whole  argument  comes  to  this.  The  Church  is  infallible, 
because  lier  infallibility  is  gathered  from  Scripture  by  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  fathers;  and  this  unanimous  con- 


2d 

sent  of  the  fathers  is  asserted,  and  established  by  the  very 
infallible  authority  which,  in  the  first  instance,  it  was  al- 
leged to  demonstrate.  Or,  in  other  words,  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  infallible,  because  she  herself  has  so  determined. 
Here  is  a  circle  of  false  reasoning-,  out  of  which  no  advocate 
for  infallibility  can  ever  extricate  himself  to  my  satisfac- 
tion. It  is  an  old,  and  hackneyed  argument,  but  not  less 
conclusive  on  that  account.* 

As  to  the  few  scriptural  texts  which  seem  to  countenanco 
infallibility,  they  appeared  no  longer  conclusive  than  I  re- 
fused to  examine  them.  The  divine  author  of  the  Christian 
religion   promised,  it  is  true,    "  to  teach  his  disciples  all 

*  It  is  very  remarkable,  that  all  Roman  Catholics  are  bound  to  admit  an 
infallible  authority,  yet  few  of  them  agree  where,  or  in  whom  it  resides.  Some, 
nay,  almost  all  the  old  schoolmen  have  taught  the  infallibility  of  the  pope. 
But  some  popes,  viz.  Liberius  Honorius,  John  22,  &c.  having  unfortunately 
enbscribed  heretical  opinions,  this  doctrine  is  at  present  almost  out  of  date. 
Some  place  infallibility  in  a  general  council.  Others  in  the  pope  and  the 
council  received  by  the  whole  Church.  But  when  all  is  said  that  possibly 
can  be  said,  the  pope  must  be  acknowledged  by  consistent  Roman  Catholics 
as  the  sole  depository  of  infallibility.  For  since  the  council  of  Trent,  it  is 
unanimously  taught  in  all  Roman  Catholic  Churches,  that  a  council  can  de- 
cree nothing  without  the  assent  of  the  pope ;  that  he  alone  has  a  right  to  in- 
terpret the  council  and  explain  its  decisions;  and  that  those  tenets  only  are 
of  faith  which  he  determines  to  be  so.  Thus  it  is  evident,  that  infallibility 
rests  ultimately  with  the  pope.  The  council  declares  the  meaning  of  some 
passage  in  Scripture,  or  of  some  point  of  tradition,  and  then  the  pope  pro- 
nounces infallibly  upon  the  sense  of  this  declaration.  This  ultimate  decision 
of  the  pope  is  supposed  to  be  inspired  by  the  spirit  of  God.  But  is  the  Chris- 
tian, who  has  no  means  of  coming  to  the  knowledge  of  this  decision  but  by 
reading  it,  or  hearing  it  read,  equally  secured  from  error  by  the  spirit  of  God  ? 
If  he  be,  then  no  private  Roman  Catholic  can  ever  misapprehend  the  mean- 
ing of  any  tenet ;  and  of  consequence,  he  is  as  infallible  as  the  pope  himself 
with  regard  to  the  right  apprehension  of  any  religious  truth.  If  he  be  not 
secured  from  error,  then  he  may  as  well  build  his  faith  upon  the  words  of 
Scripture,  which  he  is  certain  was  written  by  divine  inspiration.  A  Chris- 
tian, therefore,  may  mistake  the  words  of  a  pope,  when  he  hears,  or  reads 
them,  as  easily  as  he  can  mistake  the  words  of  Scripture.  Why,  therefore, 
not  content  himself  with  what  all  parties  agree  to  be  the  word  of  God  ;  m 
humble  confidence,  that  if  he  read,  or  hear  it  with  due  attention,  diligence, 
and  sincerity,  he  will  be  as  effectually  secured  from  any  dangerous  error,  aa 
if  he  had  read,  or  heard  the  formula  of  faith  published  by  Pope  Pius  IV. 


24 

truth;"  (John  xvi.  IS,)  and  he  undoubtedly  did  so.  But 
where  did  he  so  far  ensure  the  faith  of  their  successors, 
whether  presbyters,  bishops,  or  popes,  as  to  secure  them 
from  building  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  upon  the  foundations 
of  the  Gospel  ?  Does  not  St.  Paul  pronounce  that  such  would 
actually  be  the  case  ?  (1  Cor.  iii.  12.)  He  promised  to 
"be  with  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt, 
xxviii.  20.)  And  who  denies  it?  He  is  with  his  Church 
by  his  protection,  by  his  grace,  by  the  lights  he  communi- 
cates to  her,  by  the  strength  which  he  exerts  in  supporting 
her  against  violence  and  temptation.  But  cannot  he  be 
with  his  Church  without  rendering  her  infallible?  Is  he  not 
with  every  just  man?  Yet  who  would  hence  infer,  that  such 
a  man  is  secured  from  every  error,  beyond  a  possibility  of 
being  at  any  time  deceived  ?  Besides,  why  should  the  pre- 
sence of  Christ  render  the  Church  infallible,  rather  than 
impeccable?  Are  not  vice  and  error  equally  inherent  in  the 
corruption  of  man?  Is  not  the  former  as  formidable  an 
enemy  to  religion  as  the  latter?  Is  not  the  Christian  system 
as  perfectly  calculated  to  make  us  good  men,  as  orthodox 
believers?  Would  not  the  Church  be  equally  overthrown, 
should  either  of  these  evils  become  universal?  Why  then 
was  it  not  as  necessary  to  secure  her  against  the  one  as  the 
other?  But  the  fact  is,  neither  partial  vice  nor  partial 
error  destroys  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  religion,  and 
therefore  it  was  unnecessary  to  fence  against  eitiier.  "  That 
the  gates  of  hell,"  or  rather  of  death,  (as  the  word  hades 
manifestly  imports,)  "shall  never  prevail  against  the  Chris- 
tian Church,"  (Matt.  xvi.  18,)  is  an  article  of  my  belief,  as 
well  asof  your's.  Butthe  obviousmeaning  of  Christ's  promise 
is  only  this,  "That  neither  the  subtlety  of  infernal  spirits, 
nor  the  passions  of  men,  nor  the  violence  of  both,  shall 
ever  succeed  in  overturning  /lis  religion,  to  which  he  has 
been  pleased  to  annex  perpettnfy.  However  feeble  and  dis- 
ordered his  Church  may  be  at  times,  the  powers  of  death 
shall  never  overcome  her.     She  sliall  then  only  cease  to 


exist,  when  time  shall  be  no  more."  The  text,  therefore, 
does  not  even  insinuate,  that  the  Christian  Church  should 
never  teach  any  articles,  besides  such  as  are  fundamental 
and  necessary,  or  that  some  overbearing  society  of  Chris- 
tians should  not  hold  out  many  erroneous  opinions  as  terms 
of  communion  to  the  rest  of  the  faithful.  Against  these 
great  and  essential  tenets,  expressed  in  the  Apostles'  creed, 
and  adopted  through  every  age  by  the  most  numerous  body 
of  Christians,  the  gates  of  death  nor  of  hell  will  never  pre- 
vail. The  enemy  may  sow  weeds  and  tares  among  this 
heavenly  grain  ;  he  may  build  structures  of  straw  upon 
these  unshaken  foundations;  the  ignorance,  and  passions  of 
mankind  may  exhale  around  them  some  noxious  vapours  of 
superstition  and  immorality  ;  but  they  will  ever  retain  suffi- 
cient light  to  conduct  each  upright  and  pious  believer  to 
all  points  of  his  duty,  upon  which  his  salvation  depends.* 

The  narrow  limits  within  which  I  mean  to  restrain  this 
address,  forbid  me  to  dwell  any  longer  on  this  fruitful  argu- 
ment. The  little  I  have  said,  could  not  with  any  propriety 
be  omitted.  It  is  impossible  to  apologize  for  deserting  old 
opinions  without  slightly  mentioning  the  reasons  that  prove 
them  to  be  groundless.  T  shall  only  beg  your  attention  to 
one  more  consideration  of  this  plea  to  infallibility,  and  I 
have  done. 

Every  person  who  is  but  moderately  conversant  with  the 
history  of  the  Church,  must  have  remarked,  that  at  some 

*  The  works  which  I  have  chiefly  made  use  of  on  this  and  other  subjects 
are,  The  Religion  of  Protestants,  a  safe  way  to  Salvation,  by  William  Chilling- 
worth.  An  Answer  to  a  Challenge  made  by  a  Jesuit  i7i  Ireland,  and  a  treatise 
de  successione  et  statu  Christiano  ecclesice,  by  archbishop  Usher.  Defense  de 
la  nouvelle  traduction  du  concile  de  Trent,  par  le  Pere  le  Courayer.  Alberti- 
nus  de  sacramenfo  eucharisticB.  Defense  de  la  reformation,  par  Mons.  J.  Claude. 
Bishop  Kurd's  Discourses  on  the  Prophecies.  These  I  have  read  with  all  the 
attention  I  am  capable  of.  And  to  these,  especially  to  the  first,  which  Mr. 
Locke  pronounces  the  masterpiece  of  logic,  I  refer  every  impartial  Christian, 
who  desires  to  find  the  great  truths  of  the  Gospel  delivered  in  their  genuine 
simplicity,  supported  by  astonishing  powersof  reasoning,  and  effectually  win- 
nowed from  the  chaff  of  modern  corruptions. 

C 


26 

periods  of  time,  several  points  of  doctrine  were  defined  as 
belonging  to  faith,  which  at  others  were  debated  as  matters 
of  opinion.  The  Millenarian  system,  or  the  opinion  that, 
after  the  renovation  of  the  world,  Christ  will  reign  a  thou- 
sand years  with  his  saints  upon  earth,  was  maintained  as  an 
article  of  the  Catholic  faith  by  almost  every  father  who 
lived  immediately  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles.*  This 
doctrine  the  Roman  Church  deems  heretical  at  present.  The 
necessity  and  divine  institution  of  auricular  confession,  now 
principal  points  of  Roman  Catholic  faith,  were  discussed 
with  great  freedom  by  many  ancient  writers,  and  centuries 
were  requisite  to  settle  this  practice  in  its  present  form. 
The  learned  Alcuin,  who  lived  in  the  court  of  Charlemagne 
during  the  ninth  century,  tells  us  expressly,!  "  that  some 
said  it  was  sufficient  to  confess  our  sins  to  God  alone."  In 
a  very  ancient  and  authentic  copy  of  the  Penitential  of 
Theodore,  archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  in  690, 
which  archbishop  Usher  says  he  transcribed  in  Sir  Robert 
Cotton's  library,^  we  meet  with  these  very  remarkable 
words  :  "  It  is  lawful,  that  confession  be  made  to  God  alone, 
if  it  be  requisite:"  and  again,  "Learned  men  think  dif- 
ferently upon  this  matter,  because  the  doctors  seem  to  have 
delivered  various  and  almost  opposite  opinions  upon  it." 
The  great  canonist  Gratian,  who  wrote  the  Glossa,  or  com- 
ment upon  the  famous  Decretals,  speaks  very  explicitly 
upon  the  matter  in  question — "  Some  maintain,"  says  he, 
"  that  forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  obtained  without  any  con- 

*  See  this  particular  clearly  and  learnedly  demonstrated  by  Dr.  Burnet,  in 
his  very  ingenious  treatise  de  statu  mortuorum  et  resurgent ium,  cap.  10.  It 
was  likewise  the  decided  opinion  of  almost  all  the  primitive  fathers,  that  the 
souls  of  good  men  did  not  enjoy  the  beatific  vision  previous  to  the  general 
resurrection.  Dr.  Stapleton,  a  Roman  Catholic  divine,  cites  St.  Ireneus, 
Terlullian,  Origen,  Chrysostom,  Theodoret,  Oecumenius,  Theophylact,  Am- 
brose, Clemens  Romanus,  and  St.  Bernard  as  advocates  for  this  doctrine, 
(Defens.  Auct.  Eccl.  1.  1.  cap.  2.)  which,  however,  was  condemned  as  here- 
tical by  the  council  of  Florence. 
t  Epist.  26.    X  See  Usher's  answer,  &c.  art.  confession,  page  107. 


27 

fession  made  to  the  Church,  or  a  priest."     He  then  cites 
St.  Ambrose,  Austin,  and  Chrysostom,  as  patronising  this 
opinion.     We  have  little  reason,  therefore,  to  be  surprised 
at  what  Maldonatus  the  Jesuit  tells  us  :"^  "  That  all  the 
canonists,  following  their  first  interpreter,  maintain,  that 
confession   was   introduced   by   ecclesiastical   institution : 
which  opinion,"  continues  he,  "is  now  sufficiently  declared 
to  be  heretical  by  the  Church."     During  the  same  deplora- 
ble era  of  superstition  and  ignorance,  *'  an  era,"  says  Si- 
gonius,t  and  other  Roman  Catholic  historians,  "  surpassing 
the  darkest  and  most  profligate  ages  of  antiquity,  as  well 
by  the  infamy  of  its  princes, as  the  madness  of  the  people;" 
when  the  slender  stock  of  knowledge  possessed  by   the 
clergy  was  employed  in  compiling  the  most  contemptible 
legends,  or  involving  the  plain  meaning  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  clouds  of  allegory,  and  the  jargon  of  the  schools : 
when  bishops  sat  as  judges  at  councils,  who  were  unable 
to  write  their  own  names  ;|  when  the  lamp  of  science  was 
nearly  extinguished  in  the  western  empire,  and  the  extra- 
vagance of  a  tenet  was  its  best  recommendation  to  the 
credulous  multitude ;  at  this  woful  period  of  the  degrada- 
tion of  reason  and  prevalence  of  vice,  the  nature  of  Christ's 
presence  in  the  Eucharist  began  jSrst  to  be  agitated.     The 
term  transubstantiation  was  yet  unknown  to  the  Catholic 
Church.     An  obscure  bishop, §  who  lived  eleven  hundred 
years  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  was  the  inventor  of 
this  mysterious  word,  which  has  proved  for  several  centu? 
ries  the  test  of  orthodoxy  among  some  Christians,  and  the 
scandal  to  others.     The  doctrine  conveyed  by  it  was  no 
article  of  faith  prior  to  the  council  of  Lateran,  held  in 
1215,  as  Scotus  assures  us.|l     It  was  towards  the  beginning 
of  the  ninth  century,  that  Paschasius  Radbertus,  first  a 


*  Disput.  de  Sacram.  de  Confess,  cap.  2.  t  Lib.  6.  de  Regno  Italiae.  t  See 
Nouv.  Traite  de  diplom.  torn.  2.  p.  424.  Par  deux  Benedictins.  $  Stephen, 
bishop  of  Autun>    ||  Bellarm.  lib.  3.  de  Euchar.  cap.  23. 


28 

monk,  then  abbot  of  Corbie,  published  his  treatise  upon 
the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  as 
Bellarmin  tells  us,  was  the  "first  who  wrote  seriously  and 
copiously  concerning  it."*  This  monk,  however,  informs 
us  himself,  that  his  doctrine  was  by  no  means  universal,  or 
settled.  In  his  letter  to  Frudegardus,  speaking  of  the  cor- 
poral presence,  "  You  question  me,"  says  he,  "  upon  a  sub- 
ject, about  which  many  are  doubtful.'*  Nay,  this  is  so  very 
evident,  that  Rabanus  Maurus,  who  is  styled  by  Baronius 
the  brightest  luminary  of  Germany,  about  the  year  847 
wrote  expressly  against  the  novelty  of  this  doctrine  in  a 
letter  to  Heribaldus,  bishop  of  Auxerres  :  he  tells  him,  that 
"some  of  late,  (meaning  Paschasius  and  his  disciples,)  not 
having  a  right  notion  of  the  sacrament  of  the  body  and  blood 
of  our  Lord,  said  that  this  is  the  body  and  blood  of  our 
Lord,  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  and  in  which  our 
Lord  suffered  upon  the  cross,  and  rose  from  the  dead ; 
which  error^"*  continues  he,  "  we  have  opposed  with  all  our 
might."  I  could  show  you  further  with  what  zeal  and  eru- 
dition this  growing  error  was  confuted  by  other  famous 
men  who  lived  in  that  century,  and  especially  by  Ratramus, 
or  Bertram,  employed  expressly  by  Charles  the  Bald  to 
oppose  it.  His  work  is  still  extant,  and  proved  to  be  ge- 
nuine by  the  learned  Mabillon. 

Thus  we  see,  that  the  doctrine  of  the  carnal  presence 
was  no  sooneF  openly  maintained,  than  some  of  the  most 
celebrated  doctors  of  the  time  arose  to  combat  it;  without 
incurring  any  suspicion  of  heresy  from  their  opponents.  A 
convincing  proof  that,  at  the  period  1  am  speaking  of,  it 
was  regarded  merely  as  matter  of  opinion.  And  such,  in 
fact,  it  continued  to  be  for  two  hundred  years ;  when  so 
extravagant  a  censure  was  passed  upon  those  who  denied 
it,  by  Pope  Nicholas  and  a  council  assembled  at  Rome, 
that  unless,  as  the  comment  upon  the  canon  law  caution^ 

*  Bellarm.  de  Scrip.  .Eccles. 


29 

us,  "  we  interpret  it  in  a  sound  sense,  we  shall  fall  into 
greater  heresy  than  that  of  Berengarius  himself."* 

What  I  have  hitherto  said,  was  meant  only  to  convince 
you,  that  the  Roman  Church  regards  some  doctrines,  at  pre- 
sent, as  articles  of  faith,  which  for  many  ages  were  debated 
as  matters  of  opinion.  Now,  from  this  fact,  once  admitted, 
an  argument  arises  against  the  system  of  infallibility,  to 
which  I  could  never  discover  a  satisfactory  answer.  For  it 
must  be  granted,  these  doctrines  were  delivered  by  Jesus 
Christ  and  his  Apostles  as  essential,  or  not  essential.  If  the 
first  be  said,  then  it  is  evident,  that  the  Church  has  forfeit- 
ed her  claim  to  infallibility  by  omitting  for  many  ages  to 
teach  doctrines  as  essential,  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles 
delivered  as  such.  If  they  were  not  delivered  as  essential, 
what  are  we  to  think  of  that  Church's  infallibility,  which 
enforces  doctrines  as  necessary  and  essential,  which  the  au- 
thor of  Christianity  did  not  teach,  nor  she  herself  for  many 
centuries  conceive  to  be  so  ?  To  such  dilemmas  are  the 
advocates  of  this  system  reduced.  In  order  to  maintain  a 
uniformity,  and  catholicity  of  opinion,  they  imagine  it  ne- 
cessary to  erect  an  infallible  tribunal.  But  do  they  reflect 
that  such  a  uniformity  is  entirely  chimerical,  and  that  every 
solemn  decision  of  this  tribunal  overthrows  the  unity  it  was 
meant  to  establish  ?  For  how  is  it  possible  for  a  Church  to 
be  one  in  point  of  doctrine,  which  believes  to-day,  as  an 
article  of  her  faith,  what  she  yesterday  conceived  to  be 
matter  of  opinion? 

It  follows,  moreover,  from  admitting  such  a  living  autho- 
rity, that  the  number  of  necessary  tenets  must  increase  as 
decisions  are  multiplied.  It  will  be  in  the  power  of  bishops 
and  councils  to  frame  new  articles  of  faith,  by  deciding  ul- 
timately uDon  fresh  matters  of  dispute,  whether  important, 
or  not;  whether  countenanced  by  the  Scriptures,  or  other- 
wise.    What  was  not  a  doctrinal  point  yesterday  may  be  so 

*  Glossa  decret.  de  consecrat  dis.  2.  in  cap.  Ego  Berengarius. 
2   c 


so 

to-day.  Every  age  will  give  birth  to  new  tenets,  and  thus, 
instead  of  a  uniformity  of  testimony,  constant  variety  must 
for  ever  take  place,  to  the  no  small  confusion  and  prejudice 
of  our  belief.  The  preaching  of  Jesus  and  his  Apostles  so 
far  from  being  the  rule  of  faith  to  succeeding  ages,  will  be 
regarded  only  as  the  imperfect  draught  of  a  religion,  which 
looks  for  perfection  from  human  decrees.  For  the  Church 
must  possess  the  same  authority  for  ages  to  come,  as  she 
has  enjoyed  in  those  that  are  passed  ;  so  that  if,  as  opinions 
become  fashionable,  she  be  authorized  to  erect  them  into 
articles  of  faith,  as  has  frequently  been  the  case,  your 
creed,  perhaps,  is  still  in  its  infancy,  and  the  belief  of  suc- 
ceeding ages,  swelled  with  the  additions  of  some  future 
Pope  Pius,  may  be  as  different  from  yours,  as  is  that  of  the 
primitive  Christians  and  Apostles.  Under  the  specious 
pretext  of  recurring  to  a  living  judge,  in  order  to  fix  the 
principles  of  our  faith,  these  divines  render  it  still  more 
wavering  and  uncertain.  They  are  perpetually  introducing 
a  succession  of  opinions  into  the  system  of  religion,  as  un- 
settled as  the  fancies  that  produced  them,  as  doubtful  as 
the  authority  upon  which  they  rest,  as  various  as  the  imagi- 
nations of  those  who  have  embellished  them,  and  as  tran- 
sient as  time  which  gave  them  birth,  and  will,  sooner  or 
later,  put  a  period  to  their  existence. 

After  what  has  been  said,  it  would  be  needless  to  lay  be- 
fore you  my  profession  of  faith.  By  relinquishing  opinions 
which  I  have  striven  in  vain  to  reconcile  to  reason  or  reve- 
lation, I  trust,  I  cease  not  to  be  a  Christian  and  a  Catholic. 
Both  these  appellations  belong  surely  to  the  man  who  be- 
lieves and  professes,  as  I  solemnly  do,  every  point  of  Chris- 
tian faith,  which  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  has  consti- 
tuted the  creed  of  all  orthodox  believers,*     This  vniversal 

*  lUe  est  verus  el  germanus  Catholicus,  qui  in  fide  fixus  et  stabilis  perma- 
nens,  quicquid  universaliter  antiquitus  eccXesiava  Catholicam  tenuisse  cogno- 
verit,  id  solum  sibi  tenendum,  credendumque  decernit.  Vine.  Lerin.  Com' 
mon.  c  25. 


ol 

Christian  Catholic  faith  is  delivered  compendiously  in  the 
Apostles'  creed  :  whoever  subscribes  to  this  in  its  full  ex- 
tent, must  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church.*  The 
Apostles,  or  their  immediate  successors,  in  drawing  up  no 
other  prefession  of  faith,  discovered  clearly  what  they  in- 
tended should  be  the  belief  of  their  disciples.  By  adher- 
ing solely  to  this  universal  belief  which  alone  possesses  the 
sanction  of  all  times,  all  places,  and  all  Churches,  no  man 
can  be  said  to  embrace  a  neiv  religion,  however  he  may  dis- 
card some  doctrines,  which  at  different  periods  of  time  have 
been  engrafted  upon  the  old  one ;  especially  if  he  discover, 
after  mature  investigation,  that  these  doctrines  were  un- 
known to  the  best  ages  of  the  Church,  were  conceived  ori- 


*  It  will  here  be  objected  by  many,  that  if  we  admit  the  Apostles'  creed  in 
its  full  extent,  we  must  believe  in  the  holy  Catholic  Church  with  the  same 
assent  of  faith  with  which  we  believe  in  God  the  Father,  irj  God  the  Son,  and 
in  God  the  Holy  Ghost;  and  that  consequently  we  declare  our  implicit  sub- 
mission to  all  the  decisions  of  this  Church.  This  argument  is  as  fallacious 
as  it  is  common  and  imposing ;  the  most  authentic  catechism  of  the  Roman 
Church  entirely  overthrows  it.  The  catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent  has 
these  remarkable  words,  with  which  few  religious  instructors  seem  to  be  ac- 
quainted :  "  It  is  therefore  necessary  to  believe,  that  there  is  one  holy  and 
Catholic  Church :  for  we  so  believe  the  three  persons  of  the  Trinity,  the  Fa- 
ther, and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  that  in  them  we  place  our  faith  ;  but 
now,  the  form  of  speaking  being  altered,  we  profess  to  believe  the  holy 
Church,  but  not  to  believe  in  it ;  that  by  this  different  mode  of  expression, 
God,  the  maker  of  all  things,  may  be  distinguished  from  creatures."  I  think 
this  passage,  if  well  considered,  might  contribute  much  to  finish  all  contro- 
versies between  us.  It  behooves  every  Christian,  therefore,  to  pay  it  some 
attention.  We  are  taught  by  it  from  the  Apostles'  creed,  which  we  both 
admit,  to  believe  in  God  the  Father,  in  God  the  Son,  and  in  God  the  Holy 
Ghost.  In  this  holy  'I'rinity  we  are  taught  to  place  our  faith,  but  only  to  be- 
lieve that  there  is  one  holy  and  Catholic  Qiurch ;  and  the  reason  alleged  for 
this  difference  in  our  belief  is  most  strong  and  unanswerable:  for  the  whole 
body  of  the  Church  consisting  of  mortal  men,  who  are  all  creatures  ;  if  we 
should  believe  in  the  Church  as  we  believe  in  the  blessed  Trinity,  we  should 
not  make  a  sufficient  difference  between  Gnd  and  his  creatures.  This  is  the 
plain  and  rational  doctrine  of  your  Church's  catechism,  and  if  they  who  have 
the  care  of  your  souls,  do  not  distinctly  instruct  you  in  it,  but  suffer  you  to 
remain  in  an  erroneous  notion,  that  you  are  to  believe  in  the  holy  Catholic 
Church,  they  certainly  do  not  deal  with  you  as  candidly  as  they  ought. 


32 

ginally  in  ignorance,  fostered  by  superstition,  supported  by 
pious  forgeries,  adopted  by  worldly  policy,  propagated  by 
artifice,  and  enforced  by  all  the  power  that  spiritual  tyranny 
could  exert.  If  you  ask  me,  therefore,  to  what  Church  I 
now  belong,  my  answer  is,  to  the  Christian  Catholic  Church. 
Of  that  society  of  Christians  I  profess  myself  a  member, 
who  adopt  the  holy  Scripture  for  the  sole  standard  of  their 
belief:  the  Protestant  Churches  in  general  know  no  other 
rule  :  some  shades  of  difference  may  subsist  in  their  public 
liturgies  and  speculative  disquisitions;  but  among  none  of 
the  principal  branches  of  the  reformed  Churches  are  the 
latter  obtruded  as  articles  of  faith,  or  the  former  found  re- 
pugnant to  reason  or  morality.  Through  the  same  divine 
Mediator  they  worship  the  same  God  ;  and  from  the  suffer- 
ings and  merits  of  the  same  Redeemer,  they  expect  forgive- 
ness of  their  sins,  and  happiness  for  evermore.  In  this 
country,  where  the  Christian  only  is  the  established  reli- 
gion, where  tests  and  subscriptions  are  unknown,  where  re- 
fined speculations  are  not  likely  to  deform  the  simplicity  or 
interrupt  the  harmony  of  the  Gospel,  I  look  forward  with 
rapture  to  that  auspicious  day,  when  Protestants,  opening 
their  eyes  upon  their  mutual  agreement  in  all  the  essentials 
of  belief,  will  forget  past  animosities,  and  cease  to  regard 
each  other  as  of  different  communions.  Perhaps,  at  that 
happy  period,  Roman  Catholics  also  may  awake  from  their 
prejudices,  and,  disregarding  the  menaces  of  blind  zeal  or 
ignorance,  may  begin  to  think  for  themselves,  throw  off  the 
galling  yoke  of  old  European  prepossessions,  and  unite  cor- 
dially in  restoring  primitive  simplicity  both  in  morals  and 
belief.  To  indulge  in  these  ideas  may,  perhaps,  be  extra- 
vagant ;  but  to  a  mind  of  sensibility,  it  must  surely  be  do- 
lightful.  My  religion,  therefore,  is  that  of  the  Bible  :  what- 
ever that  sacred  book  proposes  as  an  object  of  my  faith,  or 
a  rule  of  my  conduct,  was  inspired  by  the  unerring  Spirit 
of  God,  and  for  that  reason  I  admit  it  with  all  the  faculties 
of  mv  soul. 


33 

Your  religion  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Council  of  Trent  : 
mine  the  plain  truths  delivered  in  the  Scriptures.  You 
shelter  yourselves  under  the  decisions  of  a  tribunal,  which 
you  believe  to  be  infallible:  /rely  solely  upon  the  autho- 
rity of  God's  word ;  which,  as  St.  Chrysostom  assures  us, 
"  expounds  Itself,  and  does  not  suffer  the  reader  to  err."* 
You  think  it  necessary  to  recur  to  unwritten  tradition ;  but 
/must  demand,  with  St.  Cyprian,  "  whence  have  you  that 
tradition  ?  comes  it  from  the  authority  of  the  Lord,  and 
of  the  Gospel,  or  from  the  epistles  of  the  Apostles?  for 
God  testifies  that  we  are  to  do  those  things  that  are  writ- 
ten, (fee  :  if  it  be  commanded  in  the  Gospel,  or  contained 
in  the  epistles  or  acts  of  the  Apostles,  then  let  us  observe 
it  as  a  divine  and  holy  tradition."!  You  deem  the  Scrip- 
tures deficient  and  obscure  ;  /am  satisfied  with  the  things 
that  are  written,  because  all  is  written,  "  that  the  writers 
thought  suflicient  for  faith  and  morality.":]:  I  ask,  more- 
over, with  St.  Hilary,§  "  where  is  this  deficiency  ;  where  is 
this  obscurity  ?  In  the  word  of  God,"  continues  he,  "  all 
things  are  full  and  perfect,  as  coming  from  a  full  and  per- 
fect being."  You  require  the  sanction  of  the  Chnrch  to 
stamp  the  truth  of  each  article  of  your  creed  :  /  am  con- 
tent to  acquiesce  in  that  authority,  to  which  alone  St.  Aus- 
tin and  Chrysostom  refer  us,  in  order  to  discover  which 
is  the  true  Church  of  Christ.||  In  a  word,  you  believe  many 
articles  as  essential  to  salvation,  of  which  no  mention  is 
made  in  the  Bible;  whereas,  I  am  convinced,  that  who- 
ever  believes  and  practises  what  he  discovers  there,  will 
comply  with  every  moral  and  religious  obligation,  and  rise 
to  as  high  an  excellency  of  character,  as  the  exertions  of 
our  imperfect  nature  can  reach.  Such  is  the  religion 
which,  after  a  long,  and,  as  I  trust,  sincere  deliberation,  I 
have  ultimately  chosen.  Every  day  convinces  me  that  I 
have  chosen  wisely.     It  is  the  religion  of  an  Usher,  a  Wil- 

*  Horn.  12.  in  Genesim.     t  Epist.  74.      t  S.  Cyr.  lib.  12  Joan.    $  Lib.  2.  de 
^rin,    II S.  Aug.  unit  ecclesise.  chap.  8.    Chrys.  in  Maith.  cap.  24.  horn.  49. 


34 

son,  an  Hoadly,  and  a  Newton,  and  of  innumerable  other 
worthies,  whose  admirable  writings  and  Christian  lives, 
have  been  unanswerable  apologies  for  the  principles  they 
professed.  This  I  will  ever  profess;  according  to  this, 
through  God's  grace,  will  I  endeavour  to  regulate  the  tenor 
of  my  conduct.  Upon  this  will  I  stake  my  happiness  for 
eternity.  This  will  I  inculcate  into  those  whom  Provi- 
dence may  at  any  time  place  under  my  direction ;  and  for 
this,  if  circumstances  should  require  it,  I  hope  I  should  be 
willing  to  lay  down  my  life. 

And  now,  my  fellow  Christians,  I  must  take  my  leave 
of  you.     Some  of  you,  perhaps,  will   believe  me,  when  I 
assure  them  that  I    do  it  with  very  painful  regret.     The 
many  civilities  which  I   experienced  during  my  residence 
among  you,  have  made  a  strong  and  lasting  impression  on 
my  mind.     I  trust  no  alteration  in   my  religious  opinions 
will  be  ever  able  to  efface  it.     Convinced  by  reason,  and 
taught  by  revelation,  that  true  and   genuine  religion  con- 
sists more  in  perfect  union  of  heart  than  entire  conformity 
of  opinion,  I  shall  still  deem  it  my  duty  to  cherish  the  sen- 
timents of  gratitude,  esteem,  and  charity,  which  the  worth 
and  behaviour  of  several    characters    among  you  first  ex- 
cited in  my  breast.     To  the   last  of  these,  moreover,  you 
are  entitled,  as  fellow-men  and  fellow-Christians.«    Senti- 
ments like  these,  coming  from  a  supposed  enemy,  and  an 
obscure  individual,  will  probably  be  considered  by  many 
with  contempt  or  indifference.     They  who  cannot  discri- 
minate  between   the   personal    merit    and  the   speculative 
opinions  of  men,  will  certainly  rate  them  very  low.     But 
to  persons  truly  candid  and  sincere  themselves,  such  affec- 
tions can  never  appear  less  acceptable  for  being  cherished 
by  a  man,  who,  without  any  prospect  of  emolument,  or  pro- 
mise of  attention  from   the  communion  he  embraces,  has 
sacrificed  a  certain  and  comfortable   subsistence,  and  ha- 
zarded  a  tolerable  character   among  his  nearest  connex^ 
ions,  rather  than  incur  the  reproaches  of  his  own  mind,  or 


35 

the  guilt  of  hypocrisy.  Be  this,  however,  as  it  may,  it 
must  ever  prove  a  point  of  great  importance  to  myself,  not 
to  lose  sight  of  a  commandment,  which  by  special  prefer- 
ence our  common  Redeemer  calls  his  own  ;  and  which,  as 
you  know,  is  nothing  more  than  mutual  forbearance,  be- 
nevolence, and  love.  If  with  these  dispositions  I  may 
be  allowed  so  to  do,  I  subscribe  myself,  with  heart  and 
hand. 

Your  much  obliged  and  affectionate 
Humble  Servant, 

CHARLES  HENRY  WHARTON. 


AN 

ADDRESS 


TO 


THE    ROMAN    CATHOLICS 

OF  THE 

UNITED   STATES  OF  AMERICA. 

BY  A  CATHOLIC  CLERGYMAN, 

[archbishop  CARROLL.] 


NEW-YORK:   REPUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  LONGWORTH,  1817. 


PHILADELPHIA  :    WLLLIAM  STAVELY,  1834- 


AN   ADDRESS,    &c 


Saint  Paul  recommends  to  the  ancients  of  the  Church 
of  Ephesus,  in  his  last  and  earnest  address  to  them,  "  to 
take  heed  to  themselves,  and  to  the  whole  flock,  over  which 
the  Holy  Ghost  has  placed  them  overseers,  to  feed  the 
Church  of  God."*  This  duty  is  at  all  times  incumbent  on 
those  who,  by  their  station  and  profession,  are  called  to  the 
service  of  religion  ;  and  more  especially  at  periods  of  unu- 
sual danger  and  temptation  to  the  flocks  committed  to  their 
charge :  whether  the  temptation  arise  from  outward  vio- 
lence, a  growing  corruption  of  manners,  or,  "  from  men 
arising  from  your  own  selves,  speaking  perverse  things  to 
draw  away  disciples  after  them."t  For,  in  the  Church  of 
God,  "  the  error  of  the  teacher  is  a  temptation  to  the  peo- 
ple, and  their  danger  is  greater,  where  his  knowledge  is 
more  extensive.''^  The  ancient  and  venerable  author,  who 
makes  this  observation,  having  instanced  the  truth  of  it  in 
the  departure  from  the  Catholic  faith  of  several  persons 
eminent  for  their  knowledge  and  writings,  concludes  with 
an  important  instruction,  and  recommends  it  to  be  impressed 
upon  the  minds  of  Catholics,  "  that  they  may  know,  that 
with  the  Church  they  receive  their  teachers,  but  must  not 
with  these  abandon  the  faith  of  the  Church. "§ 

You  will  not  now  be  at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  occasion 
of  the  present  address.  A  letter  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  the  city  of  Worcester  in  England,  has  been  published 
here  by  one  of  their  late  chaplains  ;  and  had  all  the  copies 
of  it  been  transmitted  to  those,  for  whom  professedly  it  is 

*  Acts  XX.  ver.  28.  t  Ibid.  ver.  30.  }  Vine.  Lir.  comm.  cap.  22.  $  Catho- 
'ici  noverint  se  cum  ecclesia  doctores  recipere,  non  cum  doctoribus  ecclesis 
tidexa  deserere  debere.     Vive.  Lir.  comra-  c,  23. 


40 

intended,  I  should  not  dedicate  to  animadversions  on  it  the 
few  moments  of  leisure  left  me  from  other  employments 
incident  to  my  charge  and  profession ;  especially  with  the 
scanty  materials  of  which  I  am  possessed  ;  for  I  am  desti- 
tute of  many  sources  of  information,  and  unable  to  refer  to 
authorities,  which  1  presume  to  have  been  collected  on  the 
other  side  with  great  industry.  By  the  chaplain's  own  ac- 
count, he  has  long  meditated  a  separation  from  us;  and, 
during  that  time,  he  had  opportunities  of  resorting  to  the 
repositories  of  science,  so  common  and  convenient  in  Eu- 
rope. 

But  the  letter  not  only  being  printed  here,  but  circulat- 
ing widely  through  the  country,  a  regard  to  your  informa- 
tion, and  the  tranquillity  of  your  consciences,  requires  some 
notice  to  be  taken  of  it.  For  the  ministers  of  religion 
should  always  remember,  that  it  is  their  duty  as  well  to  en- 
lighten the  understanding,  as  improve  the  morals  of  man- 
kind. "  You  are  the  salt  of  the  earth,"*  said  Christ  to  his 
, Apostles,  to  preserve  men  from  the  corruptions  of  vice  and 
immorality:  and  "you  are  the  light  of  the  world,"t  to  in- 
struct and  inform  it. 

Our  duty  being  so  clearly  delineated  by  the  divine  author 
of  our  religion,  if  we  have  been  deficient  in  the  discharge 
of  either  part  of  it,  if  we  have  flattered  your  passions,  or 
withheld  knowledge  from  your  minds,  we  have  certainly 
deviated  from  the  obligations  of  our  state,  and  the  positive 
injunctions  of  our  Church.  For  though  you  have  often 
heard  it  reproachfully  said,  that  it  was  both  her  maxim  and 
practice  to  keep  her  votaries  in  ignorance,  no  imputation 
can  be  more  groundless:  and  for  a  full  confutation  of  it, 
we  refer  our  candid  adversaries  to  the  ordinances  of  our 
councils,  the  directions  of  our  ecclesiastical  superiois,  and 
the  whole  discipline  of  our  Church,  even  in  ages  the  most 
inauspicious  to  the  cultivation  of  letters.     In  those  ages, 

*  Matt.  V.  13.    t  Matt.  v.  14, 


41 

indeed,  the  manners  of  the  times  had  great  influence,  as 
they  always  will,  on  the  manners  of  the  clergy  :  but  every 
informed  and  ingenuous  mind,  instead  of  being  prejudiced 
by  the  vague  imputations  on  monkish  and  clerical  ignor- 
ance, will  remember  with  gratitude,  that  they  owe  to  this 
body  of  men  the  preservation  of  ancient  literature;  that 
in  times  of  general  anarchy  and  violence,  they  alone  gave 
such  cultivation  to  letters,  as  the  unimproved  state  of  sci- 
ence admitted;  and  that  in  the  cloisters  of  cathedral 
Churches,  and  of  monasteries,  they  opened  schools  of  public 
instruction,  and,  to  men  of  studious  minds,  asylums  from 
the  turbulence  of  war  and  rapine.  The  inference  from 
these  facts  is  obvious:  for  if  the  ministers  of  religion, 
agreeably  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  cultivated  and 
taught  letters  at  a  time  when  they  were  generally  neglect- 
ed ;  if  the  resurrection  of  sound  literature  was  owing,  as 
it  certainly  was,  to  the  most  dignified  of  our  clergy;  who 
can  impute  ignorance  to  us,  as  resulting  from  the  genius  of 
our  religion? 

I  forbear  to  add  other  numerous  proofs  of  the  falsity  of 
this  charge :  and  I  can  with  confidence  appeal  to  your- 
selves, whether  your  religious  instructors  have  not,  to  the 
extent  of  their  abilities,  and  suitably  to  your  respective 
situations  in  life,  endeavoured  to  suggest  such  grounds  for 
your  adhesion  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  as  might 
make  you  ready  always  to  "give  an  answer  to  every  man 
that  asketh  you  a  reason  of  that  hope  that  is  in  you."* 
We  tell  you,  indeed,  that  you  must  submit  to  the  Church ; 
but  we  add,  with  the  Apostle,  that  "your  obedience  must 
be  reasonable."  Now,  can  obedience  be  reasonable,  "can 
any  man  give  a  reason  of  that  hope  that  is  in  him  without 
a  due  examination  of  the  grounds  or  motives  that  induce 
him  to  it?  No,  surely  ;  and  therefore  nothing  ought  to  hin- 
der you  from  examining  thoroughly  the  grounds  of  your 

*  1  Pet.  iii.  15. 
d2 


42 

religion.  Nay,  we  exhort  you  to  examine  them  over  and 
over  again,  till  you  have  a  full  conviction  of  conscience  that 
it  is  not  education,  but  the  prevailing  force  of  truth,  that 
determines  you  in  the  choice  of  it."* 

But  is  not  this  recommendation  a  mere  delusion?     Can 
a  consistent  Roman  Catholic  be  a  candid   inquirer  in  mat- 
ters of  religion  '?     Why  not  ?     "  Because,"  says  the  Chap- 
lain, "  he  cannot  set  out  with  that  indifference  to  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  a  tenet,  which  forms  the  leading  feature  of  ra- 
tional  investigation."     Did    the    Chaplain   weigh    all    the 
consequences  of  the  doctrine   here  advanced  1     Must  we 
then  suspend  all  the  duties  of  natural   religion  and  moral 
obligation?     Must  a  son  divest  himself  of  filial  love  and 
respect,  that  he  may  investigate  rationally,  and  judge  im- 
partially, of  the  obligations  resulting  from  the  tender  rela- 
tions of  parent  and  child  ?     Must  we  neglect  to  train  the 
tender  minds  of  youth  in  the  habits  of  virtue,  and  to  guard 
them  from  vice,  by  the  prospect  of  future  rewards  and  pun- 
ishments, lest  they  should  be    inclined  to  judge  hereafter 
too  partially  of  those  great  sanctions  of  natural  and  reveal- 
ed religion?     What  an  argument  is  here  suggested  to  the 
impugners  of  all  religion  ;  to  the  enemies  of  Christianity  I 
Suggested,  did   I  say,  or   borrowed   from   them  ?     For  the 
learned  Dr.  Leland,  to  whose  writings  the  cause  of  revela- 
tion is  so  much  indebted,  has  informed  us,  that  it  has  been 
long  ago  made  use  of  by  them  ;  and  his  answer  to  it,  more 
especially  as  he  was  a  Protestant,  will  save  me  the  trouble 
of  making  any  observations  on  this  extraordinary  assertion. 
"  Another  argument,"  says  he,  "  with  which  he"  (the  au- 
thor of  Christianity  not  founded  in  argument,)  "  makes  a 
mighty  parade,  is  to  this  purpose,  that  no  religion  can  be 
rational  that  is  not  founded  on  a  free  and  impartial  exami- 
nation :  and  such  an   examination   supposes  a  perfect  neu- 
trality to  the  principles  which  are  examined,  and  even  a 

♦  England's  Conversion  and  Reformation  compared,  Sect.  1. 


temporal  disbelief  of  them,  which  is  what  the  Gospel  con- 
demns. But  this  proceeds  upon  a  wrong  account  of  the 
nature  of  free  examination  and  inquiry.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary to  a  just  inquiry  into  doctrines  or  facts,  that  a  man 
should  be  absolutely  indifferent  to  them,  before  he  begins 
that  inquiry;  much  less,  that  he  should  actually  disbelieve 
them  :  as  if  he  must  necessarily  commence  atheist  before 
he  can  fairly  examine  into  the  proofs  of  the  existence  of 
God.  It  is  sufficient  to  a  candid  examination,  that  a  man 
apply  himself  to  it  with  a  mind  open  to  conviction,  and  a 
disposition  to  embrace  truth  on  which  side  soever  it  shall 
appear,  and  to  receive  the  evidence  that  shall  arise  in  the 
course  of  the  trial.  And  if  the  inquiry  relateth  to  prin- 
ciples in  which  we  have  been  instructed  ;  then,  supposing 
those  principles  to  be  in  themselves  rational  and  well 
founded,  it  may  well  happen  that  in  inquiring  into  the 
grounds  of  them,  a  fair  examination  may  be  carried  on 
without  seeing  cause  to  disbelieve  or  doubt  of  them 
through  the  whole  course  of  the  inquiry ;  which,  in  tha.t 
caspi  will  end  in  a  fuller  conviction  of  them  than  before."* 
But  Roman  Catholics,  it  seems,  are  fettered  with  other 
obstacles  to  free  inquiry.  They  cannot  "  seek  religious 
information  in  the  writings  of  Protestants,  without  in- 
curring the  severest  censures  of  their  Church."  *'  By  the 
Bulla  Coenss  excommunication  is  denounced  against  all 
persons  reading  books  written  by  heretics,  containing 
heresy,  or  treating  about  religion." 

It  is  indeed  true,  that  the  Bull  referred  to  contains  the 
})Tohibition,  as  mentioned  by  the  Chaplain  ;  and  it  is  not 
less  true,  that  in  England,  that  Protestant  country  of  free 
inquiry,  severe  laws  and  heavy  penalties  were  enacted,  and, 
if  I  am  well  informed,  still  subsist  against  the  introduc- 
tion, the  printing,  and  vending  of  books  in  favour  of  the 
Catholic  religion.     I  know,  that  within  these  last  twenty 

♦View  of  Deistical  Writers,  Vol.  I.  let.  11. 


44 

years,  these  laws  have  been  executed  with  severity.  Such, 
on  both  sides,  were  the  precautions  suggested  by  a  jealous 
zeal  to  preserve  uninformed  minds  from  the  artificial  co- 
lourings of  real  or  supposed  error.  The  heads  of  the  re- 
spective Churches  considered  it  as  their  duty  to  guard  their 
flocks  from  the  poison  of  pernicious  doctrines  ;  and  did  not 
deem  it  essential  to  fair  and  full  investigation,  that  their 
adversaries'  objections  should  be  stated  to  the  unlearned, 
to  unexperienced  youth,  or  to  the  softer  sex,  with  all  the 
acrimony  of  invective,  with  the  aggravations  of  misrepre- 
sentation, and  powers  of  ridicule  ;  weapons  too  common  in 
controversies  of  every  kind.  Without  examining  how  far 
this  zeal  was  prudent  and  justifiable  in  the  present  in- 
stance, let  me  observe,  that  the  proscription  of  books  of 
evil  tendency  is  warranted  by  the  example  of  St.  Paul's 
disciples  at  Ephesus,  acting  in  the  presence  of,  and  pro- 
bably by  the  instructions  of  their  master.  "  Many  of 
them,"  says  holy  writ,  "  that  had  followed  curious  arts, 
brought  their  books  together,  and  burnt  them  before  all."* 
And  what  inference  follows?  "  So  mightily,"  continues 
the  inspired  writer  in  the  next  verse,  "  grew  the  word  of 
God,  and  was  strengthened."  What  good  parent,  what 
conscientious  instructor,  feels  not  the  anguish  of  religion, 
when  they  find,  that  promiscuous  reading  has  caused  the 
rank  weed  of  infidelity  to  grow  in  that  soil,  the  tender 
minds  of  their  children  and  pupils,  where  they  had  sown 
and  cultivated  the  seeds  of  virtue  ? 

But,  be  the  prohibition  of  the  Bull  reasonable  or  not,  I 
will  be  bold  to  say,  it  was  no  prejudice  to  free  inquiry. 
First,  Because  that  Bull  not  only  was  never  received  into, 
but  was  expressly  rejected  from  almost  every  Catholic  state. 
In  them  it  had  no  force  ;  the  very  alleging  of  its  authority 
was  resented  as  an  encroachment  on  national  independ- 
ence ;  and,  in  particular,  the  clause   referred   to  by  the 

*  Acts  xix.  19. 


45 

Chaplain  was  generally  disregarded.  For  this  I  will  ap- 
peal to  his  own  candour.  Throughout  his  extensive  ac- 
quaintance with  Catholics,  has  he  not  known  them  to  read 
Protestant  authors  without  hesitation  or  reproof?  Did  he 
not  expect,  that  his  letter  would  freely  circulate  amongst 
them?  To  what  purpose  did  he  address  it  to  the  Roman 
Catholics  of  the  city  of  Worcester,  if  he  knew,  that,  with 
the  terrors  of  excommunication  hanging  over  them,  they 
dare  not  read  it?  In  the  course  of  his  theological  studies, 
was  he  himself  ever  denied  access  to  the  writings  of  our 
adversaries?  Were  not  the  works  of  Luther,  Calvin,  and 
Besa,  of  Hooker,  Tillotson,  and  Siillingfleet,  and  all  the 
other  champions  of  the  Protestant  cause,  open  to  his  in- 
spection ?  In  public  and  private  disputations,  were  not 
the  best  arguments  from  these  authors  fairly  and  forcibly 
stated,  in  opposition  to  the  most  sacred  tenets  of  the  Ca- 
tholic belief?  Was  not  even  literary  vanity  gratified,  by 
placing  objections  in  the  strongest  light,  and  wresting  the 
palm  of  disputation  out  of  the  hands  of  all  concurrents? 
Knowing  this,  I  must  confess,  that  I  cannot  reconcile  with 
candour  the  following  words  :  "  I  knew  that  to  seek  reli- 
gious information  in  the  writings  of  Protestants,  was  to 
incur  the  severest  censures  of  the  Church  I  belonged  to." 

May  I  not  then  say  with  confidence,  that  rational  inves- 
tigation is  as  open  to  Catholics,  as  to  any  other  set  of  men  on 
the  face  of  the  earth?  No;  we  are  told  there  still  remains 
behind  a  powerful  check  to  this  investigation.  This  article 
of  our  belief,  that  "  the  Roman  Church  is  the  mother  and 
mistress  of  all  Churches,  and  that  out  of  her  communion 
no  salvation  can  be  obtained,"  for  which  the  Chaplain  cites 
the  famous  creed  of  Pope  Pius  IV.  makes  too  great  an  im- 
pression of  terror  on  the  mind,  to  suflfer  an  unrestrained 
exertion  of  its  faculties.  Such  is  the  imputation ;  and  it 
being  extremely  odious  and  offensive,  and  tending  to  dis- 
turb the  peace  and  harmony  subsisting  in  these  United 
States  between  religionists  of  all  professions;  you  will  allow 


46 

me  to  enter  fully  into  it,  and  render,  if  I  can,  your  vindi- 
cation complete. 

I  begin  with  observing,  that  to  be  in  the  communion  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  are  two  very  distinct  things.  They  are  in  the 
communion  of  the  Church,  who  are  united  in  the  profession 
of  her  faith  and  participation  of  her  sacraments  through 
the  ministry  and  government  of  her  lawful  pastors.*  But 
the  members  of  the  Catholic  Church  are  all  those  who, 
with  a  sincere  heart,  seek  true  religion,  and  are  in  an  un- 
feigned disposition  to  embrace  the  truth  whenever  they 
find  it.  Now,  it  never  was  our  doctrine,  that  salvation  can 
be  obtained  only  by  the  former;  and  this  would  have  mani- 
festly appeared,  if  the  Chaplain,  instead  of  citing  Pope 
Pius's  creed  from  his  memory,  or  some  unfair  copy,  had 
taken  the  pains  to  examine  a  faithful  transcript  of  it.  These 
are  the  words  of  the  obnoxious  creed,  and  not  those  wrong- 
fully quoted  by  him,  which  are  not  to  be  found  in  it.  After 
enumerating  the  several  articles  of  our  belief,  it  goes  on 
thus  :  "  This  true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  one  can 
be  saved,  I  do  at  this  present  firmly  profess  and  sincerely 
hold,''  &c.  Here  is  nothing  of  the  necessity  of  commU" 
nion  with  our  Church  for  salvation  ;  nothing  that  is  not  pro- 
fessed in  the  public  liturgy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  ;  and  nothing,  I  presume,  but  what  is  taught  in 
every  Christian  society  on  earth,  viz.  that  Catholic  faith  is 
necessary  to  salvation.  The  distinction  between  being  a 
member  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  of  the  communion  of 
the  Church,  is  no  modern  distinction,  but  a  doctrine  uni- 
formly  taught  by  aiicient  as  well  as  later  divines.  "  What 
is  said,"  says  Bellarmine,  "  of  none  being  saved  out  of  the 
Church,  must  be  understood  of  them,  who  belong  not  to  it 
either  in  fact  or  desire."t  I  shall  soon  have  occasion  to 
produce  other  authors  establishing  this  same  point :  "  We 

*  JBeJlarm.  de  Eccl.  milit.  I  3.  c,  2,     t  Ibid.  3, 


47 

are  accused  of  great  uncharitableness  in  allowing  salva* 
tion  to  none  but  Catholics,  But  this  also  is  a  mistaken  no- 
tion. We  say,  I  believe,  no  more  than  do  all  other  Chris- 
tian societies.  Religion  certainly  is  an  affair  of  very  se- 
rious consideration.  When  therefore  a  man  either  neglects 
to  inform  himself;  or,  when  informed,  neglects  to  follow 
the  conviction  of  his  mind  ;  such  a  one,  we  say,  is  not  in 
the  way  of  salvation.  After  mature  inquiries,  if  I  am 
convinced,  that  the  religion  of  England  is  the  only  true 
one,  am  I  not  obliged  to  become  a  Protestant  ?  In  similar  cir- 
cumstances, must  not  you  likewise  declare  yourself  a  Ca- 
tholic? Our  meaning  is,  that  no  one  can  be  saved  out  of 
the  true  Church  ;  and,  as  we  consider  the  evidence  of  the 
truth  of  our  religion  to  be  great,  that  he,  who  will  not  em- 
brace the  truth  when  he  sees  it,  deserves  not  to  be  happy. 
God  however  is  the  searcher  of  hearts.  He  only  can  read 
those  internal  dispositions  on  which  rectitude  of  conduct 
alone  depends."*  Let  any  one  compare  this  explanation 
of  our  doctrine  with  the  doctrine  of  Protestant  divines ; 
and  discover  in  the  former,  if  he  can,  any  plainer  traces  of 
the  savaore  monster  intolerance,  than  in  the  latter.  Dr. 
Leland  is  now  before  me,  and  after  transcribing  from  him, 
I  shall  spare  myself  the  trouble  of  collecting  the  many 
other  similar  passages,  which  I  remember  to  have  read  in 
Protestant  divines.  *'It  seems  to  be  obvious,"  says  he, 
"  to  the  common  sense  and  reason  of  mankind,  that  if  God 
hath  given  a  revelation,  or  discovery  of  his  will  concern- 
ing doctrines  or  laws  of  importance  to  our  duty  and  happi- 
ness, and  hath  caused  them  to  be  promulgated  with  such 
evidence,  as  he  knoweth  to  be  sufficient  to  convince  rea- 
sonable and  well-disposed  minds  that  will  carefully  attend 
to  it,  he  hath  an  undoubted  right  to  require  those  to  whom 
this  revelation  is  published,  to  receive  and  to  obey  it;  and 

*  The   State  and  Behaviour  of  English  Catholics.— -London,  1780.   (p. 
155—6.) 


48 

if,  through  the  influence  of  corrupt  affections  and  lusts, 
those  to  whom  this  revelation  is  made  known  refuse  to  re- 
ceive it,  he  can  justly  punish  them  for  their  culpable  neg- 
lect, obstinacy,  and  disobedience.* 

Where  then  is  the  uncharitableness  peculiar  to  Catho- 
lics? Where  is  the  odious  tenet  that  dries  up  the  springs 
of  philanthropy,  and  "  chills  by  early  infusions  of  bigotry 
the  warm  feelings  of  benevolence  V  1  am  ready  to  do  jus- 
tice to  the  humanity  of  Protestants ;  1  acknowledge  with 
pleasure  and  admiration  their  many  charitable  institutions, 
their  acts  of  public  and  private  beneficence.  I  likewise, 
as  well  as  the  Chaplain,  "  have  the  happiness  to  live  in  ha- 
bits of  intimacy  and  friendship  with  many  valuable  Pro- 
f.estants ;"  but  with  all  my  attachment  to  their  persons,  and 
respect  for  their  virtues,  f  have  never  seen  nor  heard  of  the 
works  of  Christian  mercy  being  exercised  more  exten- 
sively, more  generally,  or  more  uninterruptedly,  than  by 
many  members  of  our  own  communion,  though  the  Chap- 
lain thinks  our  minds  are  "contracted  by  the  narrowness  of 
a  system."  Let  him  recall  to  his  remembrance  the  many 
receptacles  he  has  seen  erected  in  Catholic  countries  for 
indigence  and  human  distress  in  every  shape  ;  the  tender- 
ness and  attention  with  which  the  unfortunate  victims  of 
penury  and  disease  are  there  served,  not  by  mercenary  do- 
mestics, as  elsewhere  ;  but  in  many  places  by  religious  men, 
and  in  others,  by  communities  of  women,  often  of  the  first 
nobility,  dedicating  their  whole  lives  to  this  loathsome  exer- 
cise of  humanity,  without  expectation  of  any  reward  on  this 
side  the  grave.  Let  him  remember  how  many  men  of  ge- 
nius he  has  known  to  devote  themselves  with  a  like  disin- 
terestedness to  the  irksome  employment  of  training  youth 
in  the  first  rudiments  of  science  ;  and  others  encountering 
incredible  hardships,  and,  as  it  were,  burying  themselves 
alive,  to  bring  savages  to  a  social   life,  and   afterwards  to 

*  View  of  Deistical  Writers,  Vol.  I.  let.  10. 


49 

form  them  to  Christian  virtue.  To  what  society  of  Chris* 
tians  does  that  body  of  men  belong,  who  bind  themselves 
by  the  sacred  obligation  of  a  vow,  even  to  part  with  their 
own  liberty,  if  necessary,  by  offering  it  up  instead  of,  and 
for  the  redemption  of  their  fellow  Christians  groaning  under 
the  slavery  of  the  piratical  states  of  Barbary  ?  How  often 
has  the  Chaplain  seen  the  bread  of  consolation  and  the 
words  of  eternal  life  carried  into  the  gloomy  mansions  of 
the  imprisoned,  before  the  humane  Howard  had  awakened 
the  sensibility  of  England  to  this  important  object?  Need 
I  mention  the  heroical  charity  of  a  Charles  Borromeo,  of  a 
Thomas  of  Villanova,  of  Marseilles'  good  bishop,  and  so 
many  others,  who  devoted  themselves  to  the  public  relief, 
during  dreadful  visitations  of  the  plague,  when  nature  sick' 
ened,  and  each  gule  was  death  ?  The  Chaplain's  recollec- 
tion will  enable  him  to  add  greatly  to  these  instances  of 
expanded  benevolence  ;  and  I  would  fain  ask,  if  the  virtues 
from  which  they  spring,  are  not  formed  in  the  bosom  of  the 
Catholic  Church?  Can  a  religion,  which  invariably  and 
unceasingly  gives  them  birth  and  cultivation,  be  unfriendly 
to  humanity  ?  Can  so  bad  a  tree  bear  such  excellent  fruit? 

You  may  perhaps  think,  that  enough  has  been  said  to  free 
you  from  the  imputation  of  uncharitableness  in  restraining 
salvation  to  those  of  your  own  communion.  But  you  will 
excuse  me  for  dwelling  longer  on  it,  conceiving  it,  as  I  do, 
of  the  utmost  importance  to  charity  and  mutual  forbearance, 
to  render  our  doctrine  on  this  head  as  perspicuous  as  I  am 
able. 

First,  then,  it  has  been  always  and  uniformly  asserted 
by  our  divines,  that  baptism,  actual  baptism,  is  essentially 
requisite  to  initiate  us  into  the  communion  of  the  Church; 
this  notwithstanding,  their  doctrine  is  not  less  uniform,  and 
the  council  of  Trent  (sess.  6.  ch.  4.)  has  expressly  establish- 
ed it,  that  salvation  may  be  obtained  without  actual  bap- 
tism ;  thus,  then,  it  appears,  that  we  not  only  may,  but  are 

E 


50 

obliged  to  believe,  that  out  of  our  communion  salvation  may 
be  obtained. 

Secondly,  With  the  same  unanimity  our  divines  define 
heresy  to  be,  not  merely  a  mistaken  opinion  in  a  matter  of 
faith,  but  an  obstinate  adherence  to  that  opinion  :  not  bare- 
ly an  error  of  judgment,  but  an  error  arising  from  a  per- 
verse affection  of  the  will.  Hence  they  infer  that  he  is  no 
heretic,  who,  though  he  hold  false  opinions  in  matters  of 
faith,  yet  remains  in  an  habitual  disposition  to  renounce 
those  opinions,  whenever  he  discovers  them  to  be  contrary 
to  the  doctrines  of  Jesus  Christ. 

These  principles  of  our  theology  are  so  different  from  the 
common  misrepresentations  of  them,  and  even  from  the 
statement  of  them  by  the  late  Chaplain  of  Worcester,  that 
some,  I  doubt,  will  suspect  them  to  be  those  palliatives  he 
mentions,  to  disguise  the  severity  of  an  unpopular  tenet,  to 
which,  he  says,  our  late  ingenious  apologists  in  England 
have  had  recourse.  But  you  shall  see,  that  they  were 
always  our  principles,  not  only  in  England,  but  throughout 
the  Christian  world  ;  and  I  will  be  bold  to  say,  that  so  far 
from  being  contradicted  in  every  public  catechism  and  pro- 
fession of  faith y  as  is  suggested  in  the  same  page  of  the 
Chaplain's  letter,  they  are  not  impeached  in  any  one;  so 
far  from  our  teaching  the  impossibility  of  salvation  out  of 
the  communion  of  our  Church,  as  much  as  we  teach  tran- 
substantiation,  no  divine,  worthy  to  be  called  such,  teaches 
it  at  all. 

1  will  set  out  with  the  French  divines,  and  place  him 
first,  whose  reputation,  I  presume,  is  highest.  Thus  then 
does  the  illustrious  Bergier  express  himself,  in  his  admira- 
ble work,  entitled  Deism  refuted  by  itself: — "  It  is  false, 
that  wc  say  to  any  one,  that  he  will  be  damned  ;  to  do  so, 
would  be  contrary  to  our  general  doctrine  relating  to  the 
different  sects  out  of  the  bosom  of  the  Church.  First,  with 
respect  to  heretics"  (the  author  here  means  those  who, 
though  not  heretics  in  the  rigorous  sense  of  the  word,  go 


51 

^nder  that  general  denomination)  "  who  are  baptized  and 
believe  in  Jesus  Christ,  we  are  persuaded,  that  all  of  them, 
who  with  sincerity  remain  in  the  error ;  who  through  in- 
culpable ignorance  believe  themselves  to  be  in  the  way  of 
salvation  ;  who  would  be  ready  to  embrace  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic Church,  if  God  were  pleased  to  make  known  to  them, 
that  she  alone  is  the  true  Church ;  we  are  persuaded,  that 
these  candid  and  upright  persons,  from  the  disposition  of 
their  hearts,  are  children  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Such  is 
the  opinion  of  all  divines  since  St.  Augustin."* 

The  bishop  of  Puy,  whose  learning  and  merits  are  so 
much  known  and  felt  in  the  Galilean  Church,  writes  thus : 
•'  To  define  a  heretic  accurately,  it  is  not  enough  to  say, 
that  he  made  choice  of  his  doctrine,  but  it  must  be  added 
that  he  is  obstinate  in  his  choice. "f 

The  language  of  German  divines  is  the  same,  or  stronger, 
if  possible.  "  Heresy,"  says  Renter,  "  in  a  Christian  or 
baptized  person,  is  a  wilful  and  obstinate  error  of  the  un- 
derstanding, opposite  to  some  verity  of  faith.  So  that  three 
things  are  requisite  to  constitute  heresy  :  1st.  In  the  un- 
derstanding, an  erroneous  opinion  against  faith.  2dly.  In 
the  will,  liberty  and  obstinacy."  The  third  condition  is, 
that  the  erring  person  be  a  baptized  Christian  ;  other- 
wise his  sin  against  faith  is  called  infidelity,  not  heresy. 
After  which  our  author  thus  goes  on  :  "  The  obstinacy  re- 
-quisite  to  heresy,  is  a  deliberate  and  determined  resolution 
to  dissent  from  a  truth  revealed,  and  sufficiently  proposed 
by  the  Church,  or  some  other  general  rule  of  faith.":}:  The 
same  doctrine  is  delivered  by  all  the  other  German  divines 
to  whom  I  now  can  have  recourse,  and  they  cite  to  the  same 
purpose  Suarez,  &c. 

If  the  doctrine  imputed  to  us  could  be  found  any  where, 


*  Bergier,  Deisme  refute  par  lui  meme— 1.  par.  let.  4.    t  Instruct,  pasto- 
rale sur  I'heresie— page  67.  edit,  in  4to.    t  Reuter  theol.  moral  p.  2.  trac.  1, 


52 

it  would  probably  be  in  Spain  and  Italy  :  but  you  have  just 
heard  Suarez,  the  first  of  Spanish  theologians,  quoted  to 
disprove  it ;  and  with  respect  to  Italy,  Bellarmine's  opinion 
has  been  stated  ;  to  which  I  shall  add  that  of  St.  Thomas  of 
Aquin,  whose  great  authority  and  sanctity  of  life  have  pro- 
cured him  the  title  of  the  angel  of  the  school.  He  teaches 
then,  "that  even  they,  to  whom  the  Gospel  was  never  an- 
nounced, will  be  excused  from  the  sin  of  infidelity,  though 
justly  punishable  for  others  they  may  commit,  or  for  that 
in  which  they  were  born.  But  if  any  of  them  conduct 
themselves  in  the  best  manner  they  are  able,"  (by  conform- 
ing, 1  presume,  to  the  laws  of  nature  and  directions  of  right 
reason,)  "  God  will  provide  for  them  in  his  mercy."* 

You  will  observe,  that  in  the  passage  quoted  from  Ber- 
gier,  he  says  that  the  doctrine  delivered  by  him  "  has  been 
the  opinion  of  all  divines  since  St.  Augustin."  This  holy 
father,  who  usually  expresses  himself  with  great  force  and 
severity  against  real  heretics,  requires  nevertheless  the 
same  conditions  of  obstinacy  and  perverseness,  as  the  di- 
vines above  mentioned.  "  I  call  him  only  a  heretic,"  says 
he,  "  who,  when  the  doctrine  of  Catholic  faith  is  manifested 
to  him,  prefers  resistance."t  Again  :  "  They  are  not  to  be 
ranked  with  heretics  who  without  'pertinacious  animosity/ 
maintain  their  opinion,  though  false  and  mischievous,  es- 
pecially if  they  did  not  broach  it  themselves  with  forward 
presumption,  but  received  it  from  their  mistaken  and  se- 
duced parents  ;  and  if  they  seek  truth  with  earnest  solici- 
tude, and  a  readiness  to  retract  when  they  discover  it.":]: 

To  these  decisive  authorities  of  St.  Augustin,  might  be 

*  Si  qui  tamen  eorum  fecissent,  quod  in  se  est,  Dominus  eis  secundum 
suara  misericordiam  providisset,  mittendo  eis  praedicatorem  fidei,  sicut  Per 
trum  Cornelio.     Comm.  in  cap.  10.  epis.  ad  Rom.  lect.  3. 

t  Nondum  haereticum  dico,  nisi  manifestata  doctrina  Catholicae  fidei,  resis- 
tere  maluerit.    Dc  bapt.  contr.  Donat.  lib.  4.  c.  16. 

t  Qui  sententiam  suam,  quamvis  falsam  atque  perversam,  nulla  pertinaci 
animositate  defendunt,  pra^sertim  quam  non  audacia  pra;suraptionis  suae  pe- 
pererunt,  sed  a  seductis  atque  in  errorem  lapsis  parentibus  acceperunt,  quae- 


53 

added  others,  as  well  from  hira,  as  from  Jerom,  Tertullian, 
&c. ;  but  surely  enough  has  been  said  to  convince  you, 
that  we  have  no  need  to  shelter  our  doctrines  under  the 
covering  of  modern  glosses,  and  that  the  language  of  English 
and  other  divines  of  our  Church,  has,  in  this  respect,  been 
perfectly  uniform. 

Yet  in  spite  of  this  uniformity,  we  must  still  have  ob- 
truded upon  us  the  doctrine  of  confining  salvation  to  those 
only  of  our  own  communion;  for,  without  it,  the  "boasted  in- 
fallibility of  a  living  authority,"  that  is,  of  our  Church,  "  is 
no  more."  Why  so  ?  Because,  "  whoever  admits  this  au- 
thority as  an  undoubted  article  of  Christian  religion,  must 
necessarily  pronounce  condemnation  upon  those  who  wil- 
fully reject  it."  Therefore,  we  must  likewise  pronounce 
condemnation  upon  those  who  reject  it  through  ignorance 
and  inculpable  error.  Is  this  inference  logical  ?  And  yet, 
must  it  not  follow  from  the  premises,  to  make  any  thing  of 
the  Chaplain's  argument  ? 

When  I  come  to  consider  how  a  man  of  genius  and  ex- 
tensive knowledge,  as  he  surely  is,  could  bring  himself  to 
think,  that  we  hold  the  doctrine  imputed  to  us,  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  account  for  it.  He  received  his  education  in  a 
school,  and  from  men  who  have  been  charged,  unjustly  in- 
deed, both  by  Protestants  and  some  Catholics,  with  giving 
too  great  latitude  to  the  doctrine  of  invincible,  or  inculpa- 
ble ignorance.  He  heard  from  them,  that,  in  certain  cases, 
this  ignorance  extended  even  to,  and  excused  from,  the 
guilt  of  violating  the  law  of  nature.*     Can  he  then  imagine 

runt  autem  eauta  soHicitudine  veritatem,  corrigi  parati  cum  invenerint,  ne- 
quaquam  sunt  inter  hcEreticos  deputandi.  Aug.  epis.  43.  ad  Glorium  &  Eleu- 
sium. 

*  I  will  set  down  two  propositions,  which  the  Chaplain  will  remember  to 
have  been  generally  taught  in  the  schools  of  theology,  which  we  both  fre- 
quented. 1.  Possibilis  est  ignorantia  invincibilis  juris  natures  quoad  conclu- 
si(mes  remotiores  a  primis  principiis.  2.  Ignorantia  invincibilis  juris  natures 
excusat  a  peccato.  I  will  take  this  occasion  to  thank  my  former  friend 
for  the  justice  he  has  done  to  the  body  of  men  to  which  in  our  happier 

£  2 


54 

that  we  deem  it  insufficient  to  exempt  from  criminality  the 
disbelief  of  positive  facts,  such  as  the  divine  revelation  of 
certain  articles  of  religion  ? 

For  all  this,  he  still  labours  to  fix  on  us  this  obnoxious 
tenet,  with  a  perseverance  which  carries  with  it  an  air  of 
animosity.  He  says,  that  our  controvertists  make  use  of 
the  argument  cited  in  his  ninth  page,  Protestants  allow  sal- 
vation to  Catholics;  Catholics  allow  it  not  to  Protestants; 
therefore  the  religion  of  Catholics  is  the  safest.  Hence 
he  infers,  that  we  deny  salvation  to  all  but  those  of  our  own 
communion. 

If  his  inference  were  conclusive,  I  should  have  cause  to 
bring  a  similar  charge  of  cruelty  and  uncharitableness 
against  Protestants.  For  their  great  champion  Chilling- 
worth,  answering  the  very  objection  stated  by  the  Chaplain^ 
expressly  teaches,  that  Catholics  alloWf  that  ignorance  and 
repentance  may  excuse  a  Protestant  from  damnation,  though 
dying  in  his  error;  "  and  this,"  continues  he,  "  is  all  the 
charity  which,  by  your  own  (his  opponent's)  confession  also, 
the  most  favourable  Protestants  allow  to  papists."*  To 
this  I  shall  add,  that  both  Chillingworth  and  the  Chaplain 
appear  to  misapprehend  the  argument  of  our  controvertists; 
which  is  this :  You  Protestants  allow  our  Church  to  be  a 
true  Church  ;  that  it  retains  all  the  fundamental  articles  of 
religion,  without  teaching  any  damnable  error;  your  uni- 
versities have  declared,  on  a  solemn  consultation,  that  a 
person,  not  pretending  to  the  plea  of  invincible  ignorance, 

days  we  both  belonged  ;  and  whom  the  world  will  regret,  when  the  want  of 
their  services  will  recall  the  memoiy  of  them,  and  the  voice  of  envy,  of 
obloquy,  of  misrepresentation,  will  be  heard  no  more.  I  am  sorry  he  mixed 
one  word  with  their  commendations,  which  cannot  be  admitted  ;  and  that 
he  should  ascribe  ironically  to  the  tender  mercy  and  justice  of  the  Church 
those  oppressions  and  acts  of  violence,  in  which  she  had  no  part,  and  which 
were  only  imputable  to  the  unworthy  condescension,  and,  I  fear,  sinister 
views  of  an  artful  and  temporizing  pontiff. 
*  ChilUngworth's  Religion  of  Protestants,  &c.  ch.  7.  p.  306. 


55 

may  safely  leave  the  Protestant  Church,  and  become  a 
member  of  our's,  because  it  is  a  safe  way  to  salvation.  The 
Chaplain  knows,  that  many  of  the  most  eminent  Protestant 
writers  have  asserted,  that  all  the  essentials  of  true  religion 
are  to  be  found  in  our  communion ;  and  surely  the  possi- 
bility of  obtaining  salvation  is  one  of  these  essentials ;  he 
knows,  that  on  a  great  occasion  this  was  the  determination 
of  the  Protestant  university  of  Helmstadt.  But  on  the 
other  hand,  Catholic  divines  always  teach,  that  the  true 
Church  of  Christ  being  only  one,  inculpable  error  alone 
can  justify  a  Protestant  for  continuing  out  of  her  commu- 
nion ;  and  therefore  that  it  is  safest  to  become  a  Catholic. 
Such  is  the  argument  employed  by  some  of  our  contro- 
vertists.  I  do  not  undertake  to  make  it  good,  but  I  mean 
only  to  prove,  by  stating  it  fairly,  that  the  Chaplain  is  not 
warranted  to  draw  from  it  that  odious  consequence,  with 
which  we  are  unjustly  charged. 

If  then  we  do  not  hold  the  doctrine  of  exclusive  salva- 
tion, can  the  horrible  tenet  of  persecution,  which,  he  says, 
is  the  consequence  of  it,  be  imputed  to  us?  I  do  not  in- 
deed see  their  necessary  connexion  ;  but  1  know,  that  Pro- 
testants and  Catholics  equally  deviate  from  the  spirit  of 
their  religion,  when  fanaticism  and  fiery  zeal,  would  usurp 
that  control  over  men's  minds,  to  which  conviction  and  fair 
argument  have  an  exclusive  right. 

You  now  see,  that  neither  the  prohibition  of  reading  he- 
retical books,  nor  our  doctrine  concerning  the  possibility 
of  salvation,  are  any  hinderances  to  free  inquiry  in  matters 
of  religion.  If  for  so  many  years  they  withheld  the  Chap- 
lain  from  making  it,  he  was  withheld  by  unnecessary  fears, 
and  a  phantom  of  his  own  imagination.  Another  cause  too 
concurred,  as  he  tells  us,  to  hold  him  in  ignorance.  "  I 
am  not  ashamed,"  says  he,  "  to  confess,  that  it  was  the 
claim  to  infallibility,  which  prevented  me  so  long  from  ex- 
gimining  the  tenets  of  the  Roman  Church."     Here,  indeed^ 


56 

if  he  means  the  claim  of  infallibility,  as  it  rests  upon  proofs 
of  every  kind,  I  do  not  wonder  at  its  preventing  him  from 
examining  minutely  all  the  difficulties  to  which  some  of 
our  tenets  singly  may  be  liable.  For  if  things  beyond  our 
comprehension  are  proposed  to  our  belief,  the  immediate 
consideration  should  be,  by  whom  are  they  proposed?  When 
the  authority  which  proposes  them  claims  to  be  infallible, 
reason  suggests  this  farther  inquiry,  on  what  grounds  is  this 
claim  established?  Is  it  found  to  be  established  on  solid 
and  convincing  proofs?  Then  certainly  it  becomes  agreea- 
ble to  the  dictates  of  reason,  and  the  soundest  principles  of 
morality,  to  assent  to  the  doctrines  so  proposed,  though  we 
may  not  fully  comprehend  them,  nor  be  able  to  give  a  satis- 
factory answer  to  every  difficulty  that  human  ingenuity  may 
allege  against  them.  This  is  the  mode  of  reasoning  used 
by  all  defenders  of  revealed  religion  ;  they  first  apply  them- 
selves to  prove  the  divine  revelation  of  Scripture ;  having 
done  this,  they  then  infer,  that  its  mysteries  and  unsearcha- 
ble doctrines  must  be  received,  as  coming  from  an  unerring 
authority.  And  so  far  the  Chaplain  will  surely  agree  with 
me. 

I  cannot,  therefore,  see,  why  he  speaks  so  contemptuously 
of  Bellarmine's  creed,  that  *'  he  believed  what  the  Church 
believed  ;  and  that  the  Church  believed  what  he  believed." 
For  what  do  these  words  import  more  or  less,  than  that  he 
conformed  his  faith  to  that  of  the  Church  ;  that  to  her  deci- 
sions he  submitted  his  judgment  and  belief  so  entirely,  that 
the  propositions  recited  from  him  were,  in  the  language  of 
logicians,  convertible.  And  is  not  this  the  duty  of  every 
person  who  believes  the  Church  to  be  infallible,  as  that 
great  cardinal  certainly  did,  after  examining,  if  ever  man 
did,  all  that  was  written  against  her  infallibility.  Where 
lies  the  difference  between  this  collier-like  profession  of 
faith,  and  that  of  St.  Augustin  conforming  his  religion  to 
that  of  the  fathers,  his  predecessors  ?    "  I  believe,"  says  he. 


67 

"  what  they  believe  ;  I  hold  what  they  hold ;  I  preach  what 
they  preach."* 

The  Chaplain  goes  on  to  tell  the  Catholics  of  the  city  of 
Worcester,  that  "  if  a  man's  belief  be  not  rational ;  if  he 
submit  to  human  authority  without  weighing  or  understand- 
ing the  doctrines  which  it  inculcates,  this  belief  is  not 
faith — It  is  credulity,  it  is  weakness."  Who  doubts  it? 
But  if  he  submit  to  divine  authority,  though  he  do  not  fully 
comprehend  the  doctrines  delivered,  is  this  weakness  and 
credulity  1  or  is  it  the  rational  obedience  of  faith  ?  From 
his  own  account  of  the  promises  of  Christ,  his  Church  can 
never  fail  in  teaching  ih.e  fundamental  and  necessary  articles 
of  religion,  and  the  great  and  essential  tenets  expressed  in 
the  Apostles''  creed.  Is  it  then  weakness  and  credulity,  or 
rather  true  wisdom,  to  believe  with  entire  submission  these 
fundamental  articles  and  essential  tenets  7  For  the  Chaplain 
has  told  us,  that  they  are  proposed  by  an  authority,  which 
the  promises  of  Christ,  so  far  at  least,  guard  from  error  and 
delusion.  And  yet  amongst  these  tenets,  there  are  some 
beyond  the  reach  of  human  comprehension.  The  Trinity, 
the  mystery  of  the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  his  being 
conceived  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  his  crucifixion  and  death,  his 
descending  into  hell,  are,  I  presume,  those  doctrines  of 
Christianity  which  the  Chaplain  deems  fundamental ;  for 
they  are  all  contained  in  the  Apostles'  creed.  He  is  cer- 
tainly unable  to  weigh  or  understand  them.  Nevertheless, 
he  acts  rationally  in  admitting  and  believing  them,  because 
he  conceives  them  to  be  revealed  by  an  infallible  guide. 
Can  it  then  be  folly  and  credulity  in  you  to  believe,  for  a 
similar  reason,  these  and  all  other  articles  of  your  religion? 

The  vainest,  therefore,  of  all  controversies,  and  the  most 
ineffectual  for  the  discovery  of  truth,  is,  to  dispute  on  the 
metaphysical  nature  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.  For 
instance,  to  prove  the  Trinity,  should  we  set  about  reading 

*  Aug.  1. 1.  cont.  Julian,  c.  5. 


58 

lectures  on  the  divine  persons  and  essence,  on  the  eternal 
and  necessary  generation  of  the  word,  &;c  ?  This  indeed 
would  be  folly,  and  We  should  speak  a  language  unintelli- 
gible to  our  hearers  and  ourselves.  In  this,  and  all  similar 
cases,  the  only  rational  method  is,  to  show  that  the  contest- 
ed doctrine  is  proposed  to  our  belief  by  an  infallible  autho- 
rity. This  undoubtedly  would  be  the  Chaplain's  method 
in  asserting  against  Arians,Socinians,  and  modern  sectaries, 
the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and  the  eternity  of  future 
punishments ;  and  such  likewise  is  the  method,  by  which 
we  endeavour  to  establish  the  tenets,  which  he  calls  the 
discriminating  doctrines  of  our  Church. 

Apply  these  principles  to  all  his  reasonings  in  his  20th, 
21st,  and  22d  pages,  and  see  what  they  will  come  to.  Set 
him  in  competition  with  a  Deist,  an  Arian,  a  Socinian  ;  and 
how  will  he  extricate  himself  from  his  own  arguments, 
when  urged  to  subvert  the  infallibility  of  Scripture,  or  the 
Christian  doctrines  of  original  sin,  of  the  Trinity,  the  Incar- 
nation and  redemption  of  mankind  ?  "  Religion  and  reason 
can  never  be  at  variance,"  will  they  say  with  the  Chaplain, 
"  because  the  most  rational  religion  must  always  be  the 
best.''  "  The  language  of  reason  was  never  yet  rejected 
with  impunity — she  will  be  heard — she  must  be  respected," 
&c.  Do  then  some  controverted  texts  of  Scripture  make  the 
Trinity  and  Incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God  as  evident  to  rea- 
son as  it  is  plain  to  the  most  ordinary  capacity,  that  three 
divine  persons  really  distinct  cannot  be  one  and  the  same 
God  ?  or  that  the  eternal  and  immortal  God  cannot  become 
a  mortal  and  suffering  man,  which  is  "  a  stumbling  block  to 
the  Jews,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness  ?"* 

Will  the  Chaplain  reply  to  the  Deist,  and  tell  him,  that 
the  infallibility  of  Scripture  warrants  his  belief  of  these  seem- 
ingly absurd  tenets?  He  will  be  answered,  that  he  begs 
the  question  :  and  in  his  own  language,  that  reason  assures 

*  1  Cor,  i.  23. 


69 

him,  (the  Deist,)  with  greater  evidence  than  the  infallibility 
of  Scripture  is  proved,  "  that  the  Almighty  requires  not  our 
belief  of  doctrines  which  stand  in  direct  contradiction  to 
the  only  means  he  has  allowed  us  of  arriving  at  truth — our 
senses  and  understanding." 

Nor  will  the  Deist  stop  here ;  he  will  add,  that  the  pre- 
tended  infallibility  of  Scripture  must  prevent  the  Chaplain 
from  examining  the  tenets  of  the  Christian  Church.  "Shel- 
tered under  the  garb  of  so  gorgeous  a  prerogative,  impress- 
ed upon  the  yielding  mind  of  youth  by  men  of  sense  and 
virtue  ;  backed  moreover  by  the  splendour  of  supposed  mi- 
racles and  the  horrors  of  damnation,  opinions  the  most 
absurd  and  contradictory  must  frequently  dazzle  and  over- 
awe the  understanding.  Amidst  the  fascinating  glare  of 
so  mighty  a  privilege,  the  eye  of  reason  becomes  dim  and 
inactive."  Can  the  Chaplain,  or  any  other  person,  tell  us, 
why  a  Bolingbroke,  or  a  Hume,  had  not  as  good  a  right  to 
use  this  argument  against  the  general  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity, as  the  Chaplain  had  to  urge  it  against  the  discrimi- 
nating doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 

Such  are  the  difficulties  in  which  men  involve  them- 
selves, by  extending  the  exercise  of  reason  to  matters  be- 
yond its  competency.  Let  this  excellent  gift  of  our  provi- 
dent and  bountiful  Creator  be  employed,  as  has  been  said 
before,  in  examining  the  grounds  for  believing  the  Scrip- 
tures to  be  infallible  ;  but  let  it  go  no  farther,  when  that  in- 
fallibility is  fully  evinced.  In  the  same  manner,  let  your 
reason  investicjate  with  the  utmost  attention  and  sincere 
desire  of  discovering  truth,  the  motives  for  and  against  the 
Church's  infallibility;  but  if  your  inquiries  terminate  in  a 
full  conviction  of  her  having  received  this  great  preroga- 
tive from  Jesus  Christ,  "  the  author  and  finisher  of  our 
faith,"  submit  with  respect  and  docility  to  her  decisions. 
The  Chaplain  himself,  when  less  wrapt  in  extacy  with  tiie 
beauties  of  reason,  can  acknowledge  this :  "  Show  me," 
says  he,  "  the  proofs  of  this  infallibility,  and  if  I  do  not 


66 

admit  them  with  every  faculty  of  my  soul,  you  have  my 
leave  to  brand  me  with  the  pride  of  lucifer." 

You  will  not  expect  me  to  enter  fully  into  this  subject, 
and  point  out  either  to  you  or  the  Chaplain,  the  proofs 
which  he  requires.  Neither  my  leisure  nor  inclination, 
now  allow  me  to  undertake,  what  has  been  done  by  much 
abler  hands.  The  Chaplain,  and  you  too,  I  hope,  know 
where  to  look  for  these  proofs.  Let  him  peruse  the  con- 
troversial works  of  Bellarmine,  Bossuet,  Nicole  and  Ber- 
gier,  Mumford's  Question  of  Questions,  Manning's  and 
Hawarden's  writings  on  this  subject ;  let  him  contrast  them 
with  Albertinus  and  Claude  ;  with  Chillingworth,  Usher, 
and  Bishop  Hurd.  There  is  no  answering  for  the  impres- 
sions which  the  minds  of  different  men  may  receive  from 
perusing  the  same  authors.  I  can  only  say,  for  my  own 
part,  that  as  far  as  my  reading  on  this  subject  has  extend- 
ed, I  have  generally  found,  on  one  side,  candour  in  stating 
the  opposite  doctrine,  fairness  in  quotations,  clearness  and 
fulness  in  the  answers,  and  consistency  in  maintaining  and 
defending  controverted  points.  On  the  other  hand,  I  have 
often  met  with  gross  misrepresentation,  unfair  quotations, 
partial  answers,  and  inconsistency  of  character  in  the  con- 
trovertist;  impugning  and  defending  sometimes  on  the  prin- 
ciples of  a  Protestant,  sometimes  on  those  of  a  Socinian  or 
Deist,  sometimes  pretending  to  model  his  religion  on  the 
belief  of  the  four  first  ages  of  Christianity  ;  and  at  other 
times  finding  corruptions  immediately  after,  if  not  co-eval 
with  the  apostolical  times. 

On  this  sul)ject,  therefore,  whatever  disadvantage  it  may 
be  to  our  cause,  I  shall  confine  myself  solely  to  the  defen- 
sive, and  endeavour  to  satisfy  you,  that  the  Chaplain  has 
given  no  sufficient  reason  to  shake  the  stability  of  your 
faith,  with  respect  to  the  infallibility  of  the  Church. 

He  observes,  that  the  few  Scriptvral  texts,  "  which  seem 
to  countenance  infallibility,  appeared  no  longer  conclusive 
than  he  refused  to  examine  themy     Why  he   ever  refused 


61 

to  examine  them  he  is  yet  to  explain ;  especially  as  the 
duty  of  his  profession,  and  the  particular  course  of  his  stu- 
dies, called  for  a  more  attentive  and  fuller  examination  of 
them,  than  the  generality  of  Christians  are  obliged  to. 
Surely  he  does  not  mean  to  insinuate,  that  he  was  ever  dis- 
couraged from,  or  deprived  of  the  means  of  making  inquiry. 
Nor  do  I  know  why  he  mentions  only  a  few  texts,  as  coun- 
tenancing the  doctrine  of  infallibility,  since  the  writers 
above  named  allege  so  many  both  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament.  The  author  of  the  Catholic  Scripturist,  whom 
the  Chaplain  might  have  found  an  adversary  worthy  of  his 
Chillingworth  and  Usher,  enumerates  thirty  texts  to  prove 
this  point,  besides  others,  to  which  he  refers.  Let  us  how- 
ever hear  the  Chaplain's  animadversions  on  the  few  he  has 
thought  proper  to  consider. 

Amongst  other  proofs  of  her  infallibility,  the  Catholic 
Church  alleges  these  words  of  Christ  to  St.  Peter,  (Matt, 
xvi.  18.)  "  Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build 
my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail  against 
it."  The  Chaplain  observes  that  this  text  is  wrongfully 
translated,  and  that  the  Greek  Avord  hades  manifestly  im- 
ports death,  and  not  hell.  The  alteration  is  not  very  ma- 
terial in  itself,  and  might  well  pass  unnoticed,  were  it  not 
for  the  sake  of  showing  how  unsafe  it  is  to  trust  to  private 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  opposition  to  the  general 
sense  and  understanding  of  the  Church  in  all  its  ages. 
The  Chaplain  has  taken  up  this  interpretation  from  Besa, 
who,  I  believe,  first  suggested  it.  But  I  would  fain  ask 
these  sagacious  Greek  critics,  whether  hell  is  not  meant  by 
that  place,  out  of  which  the  rich  man  (Luke  xvi.)  lifted 
up  his  eyes,  and  seeing  Lazarus,  wished  he  might  be  al- 
lowed to  cool  with  water  his  tongue  ;  for  "  I  am  torment- 
ed," said  he,  "  in  this  flame."*  Was  not  hell  that  place  of 
torments,  which  he  wished  his  brethren  might  be   warned 

*  Luke  xvi.  24. 
P 


6-2 

to  avoid?  Now  what  says  the  Greek  text  in  this  placet 
*'  And  in  hell,  iv  t®  «cr«,  lifting  up  his  eyes  when  he  was  in 
torments,  he  saw  Abraham  afar  off."  If  I  did  not  deem 
this  Scripture  passage  sufficient  to  prove  that  the  word 
hades  does  not  mafiifestly  import  death,  I  could  add  many 
others  equally  conclusive ;  and  could  support  them  with 
the  authority  of  some  of  the  best  Greek  authors,  as  well  as 
of  Calvin,  and  even  of  Besa,  in  contradiction  to  himself. 
Among  the  moderns,  the  Chaplain  will  not  dispute  the 
palm  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  literature  with  Dr.  Lowth,  now 
bishop  of  London,  or  with  his  learned  commentator,  pro- 
fessor Michaelis  of  Gottingen.  Let  him  read  the  Bi- 
shop's elegant  work  de  sacra  Poesi  Hehraeoriim,  prwlect.  1 ; 
and  the  professor  in  his  annotations  on  that  preelection,  and 
he  will  find  them  both  decided  in  their  opinion,  that  the 
Greek  word  hades,  as  well  as  its  correspondent  Hebrew 
one,  denotes  not  death,  but  the  subterraneous  receptacle 
of  departed  souls,  which  is  pointedly  expressive  of  the  po- 
pular idea  of  hell. 

But  let  us  admit  the  Chaplain's  interpretation ;  let 
Christ's  words  import,  in  their  obvious  sense,  that  the 
Church  shall  never  fail,  not  that  she  shall  never  err.  Does 
he  not  know,  that  the  Church  fails  principally  by  erring  I 
How  did  she  fail  in  the  countries  overrun  with  Arianism? 
Was  it  not  by  error  in  faith  ?  and  so  in  all  countries  cor- 
rupted by  heresy.  Thus  likewise  would  the  whole  visible 
Church  have  failed,  had  she  proposed  any  error  to  be  be- 
lieved as  an  article  of  faith.  "  For  to  do  this  is  to  pro- 
pose a  lie,  as  upheld  by  divine  authority  ;  which  is  to  fall 
no  less  foully  than  he  should  fall,  who  should  teach  God  to 
be  an  affirmer  and  confirmer  of  lies.  For  whatsoever  point 
any  Church  held,  as  a  point  of  their  faith,  they  held  it  as 
a  divine  verity,  affirmed  and  revealed  by  God.  Therefore, 
if,  in  any  age,  the  visible  Church  held  any  error  for  a  point 
of  faith,  it  did  fail  most  miserably."* 

*  Mnmford,  Quest,  of  Quest,  sect.  15. 


63 

The  Chaplain's  charge  of  unfaithful  translation  of  Scrip- 
ture being  thus  removed,  let  us  examine  the  meaning  he 
gives  to  the  promises  of  Christ.     The  obvious  one,  he  says, 
is  only  this,  "  that  neither  the  subtlety  of  infernal  spirits, 
nor  the  passions  of  men,  nor  the  violence  of  both,  shall  ever 
succeed  in  overturning  his  religion,  to  which  he  has  been 
pleased  to  annex  perpetuity.     Howeve?-  feeble  and  disor- 
dered his  Church  may  be  at  times,  the  powers  of  death 
shall  never  overcome  her.     She  shall  then  only  cease  to 
exist,  when  time  shall  be  no  more."     If  ever  confident  as- 
sertion stood  in  the  place  of  solid  argument,  here  surely 
is  an  instance  of  it.     What!  Does  Christ's  promise  to  his 
Church    obviously  convey   the   meaning  imported  in  the 
Chaplain's  exposition,  particularly  in  the  first  member  of 
the  second  sentence  of  it,  when  there  is  not  a  single  word 
to  justify  that  meaning?  The  promise  is  unlimited  and  un- 
conditional;  what  right  therefore  has  he  to  limit  it?  or  if 
he  have,  why  has  not  any  one  of  us  an  equal  right  to  limit 
Christ's  promises  to  teach  his  disciples  all  truth,  which  the 
Chaplain  says  he  undoubtedly  did  ?  Why  may  we  not  say, 
that  he  taught  them  truth  so  far,  as  to  prevent  their  falling 
into  diViY  fundamental  error,  sufficient  to  overturn  the  great 
principles  of  religion  ?  Why  may  we  not  say,  that  his  spirit 
was  so  far  with  the  evangelists,  as  to  direct  them  in  teach- 
ing the  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  but  not  in  guard- 
ing them  against  errors  of  less  consequence  ?  And  why 
may  we   not  thus  give  a  mortal  stab  to  the  authority  of 
Scripture  itself,  by  limiting  its  infallibility  to  those  things 
only,  which  it  may  please  each  man's  private  judgment  to 
deem  fundamental  1 

"The  text,"  continues  the  Chaplain,  "does  not  even 
insinuate  that  the  Christian  Church  should  never  teach  any 
articles,  besides  such  as  are  fundamental  and  necessary  ;  or 
that  some  overbearing  society  of  Christians,  should  not  hold 
out  many  erroneous  opinions,  as  terms  of  communion  to 
the  rest  of  the  faithful."     If,  by  overbearing  society  of 


64 

Christians,  the  author  mean  not  the  Church  of  Christ,  he  is 
certainly  right ;  for  to  no  such  society  was  a  divine  promise 
ever  made,  of  its  not  falling  into  erroneous  opinions ;  but 
if  he  mean,  as  he  must,  to  say  any  thing  to  the  purpose, 
that  it  is  not  even  insinuated  in  the  promises  of  Christ,  that 
his  Church  shall  never  hold  out  erroneous  opinions  as  terms 
of  communion,  I  am  yet  to  learn  the  signification  of  plain 
words.  "  For,"  says  an  excellent  author,  "  if  words  retain 
their  usual  signification,  we  cannot  charge  the  Church  of 
Christ  with  error,  even  against  any  one  single  article  of 
faith,  but  we  must  draw  this  impious  consequence  from  it, 
that  he  was  either  ignorant  of  the  event  of  his  promise,  or 
unfaithful  to  it ;  and  that  after  having  in  so  solemn  a  man- 
ner engaged  his  sacred  word  to  St.  Peter,  that  the  gates  of 
hell  shall  not  prevail  against  his  Church,  he  has  neverthe- 
less delivered  her  up  to  the  power  of  Satan,  to  be  destroyed 
by  him." 

"  This  consequence  will  appear  undeniable,  if  we  con- 
sider the  two  following  truths  :  1st.  That  faith  is  essential 
to  the  constitution  of  the  Church;  and  2dly.  That  heresy 
destroys  faith.  For  it  plainly  follows  hence,  that,  if  the 
whole  Church  fall  into  heresy,  she  is  without  faith,  and  is 
no  more  the  Church  she  was  before,  than  a  man  can  con- 
tinue to  be  a  man  without  a  soul."*  If  the  Church  of 
Christ  hold  out  erroneous  opinions  as  terms  of  communion, 
does  she  not,  by  public  authority,  establish  falsehood  in- 
stead of  truth,  and  the  lies  of  Satan  for  the  genuine  word 
of  God  ?  How  shall  we  be  assured  that  these  errors  are  not 
destructive  of  the  fundamental  articles  of  Christianity? 
Suppose,  for  instance,  she  require  an  idolatrous  worship,  or 
teach  those  mysteries  of  iniquity  mentioned  in  the  Chap- 
lain's letter,  the  denying  of  salvation  to  all  out  of  her  oitm 
communion,  and  the  horrible  heresy  of  persecution ;  will 

*  Manning,  Shortest  Way  to  end  Disputes  about  Religion,  chap.  1 


65 

not  the  gates  of  hell  then  prevail  against  her  ?  will  not  the 
promises  of  Christ  be  vain  and  deceitful  ? 

But,  it  seems  the  promises  were  not  made  to  the  Church : 
not  against  Aer,  but  *' against  the  great  and  essential  tenets 
expressed  in  the  Apostles'  creed,  and  adopted  through 
every  age  by  the  most  numerous  body  of  Christians,  the 
gates  of  death  or  of  hell  will  never  prevail — They  will  ever 
retain  sufficient  light  to  conduct  each  upright  and  pious  be- 
liever to  all  points  of  his  duty  upon  which  his  salvation  de- 
pends." So,  before,  in  giving  us  the  obvious  meaning  of 
this  disputed  text,  the  Chaplain  had  found  out,  that  the 
gates  of  hell  were  never  to  succeed  in  overturning,  not  the 
Church,  but  the  religion  of  Christ.  Are  then  the  great 
and  essential  tenets  of  the  Apostles^  creed,  and  the  Church, 
one  and  the  same  thing?  Is  the  Christian  religion,  that  is, 
the  Christian  system  of  belief  and  practice,  the  same  thing 
as  the  society  of  Christians  professing  that  system  ?  When 
we  are  directed,  (Matt,  xviii.  16.)  to  tell  the  Church  of  our 
offending  brethren,  are  we  to  go  and  tell  their  offences  to 
the  great  and  essential  tenets  of  Christianity,  or  to  the  Chris- 
tian religion  ?  It  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the  advantage, 
or  rather  the  fatal  consequences  to  Christianity,  which  an 
able  but  irreligious  controvertist  might  hope  to  derive  from 
this  alteration.  He  might  lay  down,  as  the  only  funda- 
mental articles  of  Christian  belief,  some  few,  which  offer 
no  violence  to  his  understanding  or  passions;  and  such,  as 
having  for  this  very  reason  been  little  contested,  were  ge- 
nerally admitted  by  sectaries  of  all  denominations.  He 
might  then  contend,  that  the  promises  of  Christ  refer  only 
to  the  upholding  of  these  articles,  and  that  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  never  prevail  to  their  extinction.  The  religious  so- 
cieties professing  to  believe  them  may  all  perish  in  their 
turns ;  but  the  promises  of  Christ  will  abide,  if  a  new  so- 
ciety arise  adhering  to  the  same  supposed  fundamental 
tenets;  she  may  adopt  many  errors  indeed,  and  superin- 
duce them  on  the  foundation  of  faith.     But  for  all  this,  the 

f8 


66 

promises  of  Christ  would  not  be  made  void  ;  these  promises 
not  being  intended  in  favour  of  any  religious  society  or 
Church,  however  the  letter  of  them  may  sound,  but  only  of 
the  fundamental  articles  of  religion.  It  will  then  be  imma- 
terial, whether  we  unite  with  Catholics,  Protestants,  or  any 
ancient  or  modern  sectaries,  provided  they  admit  the  few 
doctrines  which  each  of  us  may  lay  down  as  fundamental 
of  Christianity  ;  and  we  may  call  this  being  Catholic  Chris- 
tians ;  though  the  sincere  friends  of  Christianity,  both 
Catholic  and  Protestant,  have  deemed  such  principles  lati- 
tudinarianism  in  religion,  and  indeed  subversive  of  all  re- 
vealed religion. 

Will  the  Chaplain  say,  that  he  did  not  intend  to  put  the 
charge  upon  his  readers,  and  that  the  expressions  I  have 
noticed,  fell  inadvertently  from  his  pen?  Will  he  acknow- 
ledge that,  without  prejudice  to  his  cause,  the  word  Church 
may  be  substituted,  agreeably  to  the  Scriptural  text,  where 
he  has  placed  great  and  essential  articles  1  Be  it  so ;  and 
let  not  his  candour  be  impeached.  But  let  us  now  see 
what  will  come  of  his  exposition.  "  Against  the  Church, 
the  gates  of  hell  will  never  prevail — but  she  will  ever  re- 
tain sufficient  light  to  conduct  each  upright  and  pious  be- 
liever to  all  points  of  his  duty,  upon  which  his  salvation 
depends."  If  this  be  true,  and  necessarily  true  in  virtue  of 
the  promises  of  Christ,  then  even  in  the  most  "  deplorable 
era  of  superstition  and  ignorance,''  in  every  preceding  and 
subsequent  era,  even  in  that  of  the  reformation,  "the 
Christian  Church  retained  sufficient  light  to  conduct  each 
upright  and  pious  believer  to  all  points  of  his  duty,  upon 
which  his  salvation  depended."  Need  I  point  out  the  con- 
set^uences  ensuing  to  the  first  reformers  from  this  doctrine  ; 
and  consequently  to  those  who  became  their  disciples? 
Need  I  tell  you,  that,  having  separated  themselves  from  the 
great  body  of  Christians  throughout  the  world,  they  broke 
asunder  the  link  of  unity,  and  left  a  society  in  which 
"  sufficient  light  remained  to  conduct  each  upright  and 


67 

pious  believer  to  all  points  of  his  duty?"  And  since  this 
society  is  the  same  now  it  then  was,  or  rather  more  pure, 
for  (the  Chaplain  says,  "  the  Roman  Church  is  daily  under- 
going a  silent  reformation,")  it  still  retains  that  light,  and 
consequently  still  has  the  promises  of  Christ  pledged  for  its 
continuance.  But  what  assurance  has  he,  or  any  one,  who 
leaves  this  society,  of  the  promises  of  Christ,  extended  to 
that,  which  he  embraces  in  its  stead  ? 

Before  I  conclude  upon  this  text,  you  will  allow  me  to 
state  the  Chaplain's  objection  to  the  Catholic  explanation 
of  it,  and  to  give  you  the  answer,  as  I  find  it  ready  made  to 
my  hands.  The  objection  is,  that  the  text  might  be  as 
well  alleged  to  prove,  that  sin  and  wickedness  cannot  pre- 
vail against  the  Church,  as  it  is  brought  to  prove  that  error 
and  heresy  cannot ;  for  "  vice  is  as  formidable  an  enemy 
to  religion,  as  error  ;  and  the  Christian  system  is  as  per- 
fectly calculated  to  make  us  good  men  as  orthodox  believ- 
ers." "  So  far"  the  Chaplain  "  is  in  the  right ;  that  in 
virtue  of  this,  and  many  other  promises  of  the  word  of 
God,  sin  and  wickedness  shall  never  so  generally  prevail, 
but  that  the  Church  of  Christ  shall  be  always  holy  both  in 
her  doctrine,  and  in  the  lives  of  many,  both  pastors  and 
people  living  up  to  her  doctrine.  But  then  there  is  this 
difference  between  the  case  of  damnable  error  in  doctrine, 
and  that  of  sin  and  wickedness  in  practice,  that  the  former, 
if  established  by  the  whole  body  of  Church-guides,  would 
of  course  involve  also  the  whole  body  of  God's  people,  who 
are  commanded  to  hear  their  Church-guides,  and  do  what 
they  teach  them  ;  whereas,  in  the  latter  case,  if  pastors 
are  guilty  of  any  wicked  practices  contrary  to  their  doc- 
trine, the  faithful  are  taught  to  do  what  they  say,  and  not 
what  they  do."  (Matt,  xxiii.  2,  3.)* 

To  show,  farther,  that  infallibility  in  faith  is  not  neces- 
sarily attended  with  unfailing  sanctity  of  manners,  let  it  be 

*  Letter  to  a  friend  concerning  infallibility.    London,  1743. 


68 

observed,  that  though  in  time  of  the  Old  Testament,  God 
was  present  with  his  infallible  spirit  to  David  and  Solomon, 
when  they  wrote  their  books  received  into  the  canon  of 
Scripture,  yet  he  did  not  prevent  the  first  from  committing 
adultery  and  murder,  nor  the  second  from  "  going  after 
Astaroth,  the  goddess  of  the  Sidonians,  and  after  Michom, 
the  abomination  of  the  Ammonites."  (1  Kings  xi.  15.) 
Neither  did  Christ  render  his  Apostles  and  Evangelists 
impeccable,  though  he  conferred  on  them  the  privilege  of 
infallibility.  When  the  Chaplain  has  discovered,  in  the 
decrees  of  infinite  wisdom,  the  true  reason  of  this  conduct, 
he  will  at  the  same  time  be  able  to  give  a  satisfactory  answer 
to  his  own  objection,  and  tell  us,  why  it  may  not  please 
Divine  Providence  to  ordain  the  preservation  of  the  Church 
from  error,  and  yet  suffer  the  individual  members  of  it  to 
be  liable  to  sin  and  immorality. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  promises  of  Christ,  made  at  his  last 
supper,  in  that  discourse  which  "  is,  as  it  were,  his  last  will 
and  testament ;  every  word  whereof  seems  to  be  the  over- 
flowing of  a  heart  filled  with  concern  for  his  future 
Church."*  These  promises  the  Chaplain  has  stated  com- 
pendiously enough.  "  The  divine  author  of  the  Christian 
religion  promised,"  says  he,  "  to  teach  his  disciples  all 
truth.  (John  xiv.  1.5,  16.)  And  he  undoubtedly  did  so. 
But  where  did  he  so  far  ensure  the  faith  of  their  successors, 
as  to  secure  them  from  building  wood,  hay,  and  stubble 
upon  the  foundation  of  the  Gospel  ?"  "  He  promised  to  be 
with  his  disciples  to  the  end  of  the  world.  (Matt.  20.) 
And  who  denies  it  ?  He  is  with  his  Church  by  his  protec- 
tion, by  his  grace,  by  the  lights  he  communicates  to  her, 
by  the  strength  which  he  exerts  in  supporting  her  against 
violence  and  temptation." 

Such,  according  to  the  Chaplain,  is  the  explanation  of 
these  passages  from  St.  John.     His  reasons  for  so  explain- 

*  Shortest  Way,  &c. 


69 

ing  them  shall  be  presently  examined.  1  will  first  set  the 
texts  down  more  fully,  as  they  stand  in  the  Gospel.  Our 
Saviour's  words,  spoken  to  his  Apostles,  and  recorded  by 
St.  John  in  his  14th  chapter,  are  these  :  "  I  will  ask  my 
Father,  and  he  will  send  you  another  Comforter  to  abide 
with  you  for  ever."  (John  xiv.  16.)  And  soon  after  he  in- 
forms them  who  this  Comforter  is  to  be,  and  to  what  end 
his  Father  will  send  him.  "  The  Comforter,"  says  Christ, 
"whom  the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance, 
whatsoever  I  have  said  unto  you."  This  promise  is  again 
repeated  in  the  16th  chapter,  which  is  a  continuation  of 
the  same  discourse.  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto 
you  ;  but  you  cannot  hear  them  now ;  however,  when  the 
Spirit  of  truth  is  come,  he  will  lead  yon  into  all  truth." 

In  these  texts,  we  see  the  means  clearly  and  distinctly 
set  down,  by  which  the  Church  is  to  be  for  ever  protected, 
viz.  the  perpetual  assistance  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  teaching 
and  leading  the  Apostles  and  their  successors,  that  is,  the 
body  of  pastors,  into  all  truth  necessary  and  relating  to  the 
service  of  God,  and  salvation  of  man. 

The  Chaplain  denies  not  the  sufficiency  of  the  means; 
he  even  acknowledges,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  "  undoubted- 
ly led  the  disciples  into  all  truth ;"  but  to  them  he  limits 
the  extent  of  the  promises  ;  the  faith  of  their  successors  is 
left  to  "  be  tossed  to  and  fro  with  every  wind  of  doctrine  ;"* 
or  at  best,  to  be  modelled  upon  their  own  fallible  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture.  "  For  where,"  says  he,  "  did  the 
divine  Author  of  our  religion  ensure  the  faith  of  their  suc- 
cessors 1"  I  answer,  in  the  plain,  unambiguous  words,  as 
1  have  cited  them  from  John  xiv.  16 ;  for  they  expressly 
say,  that  the  Comforter,  or  Holy  Ghost,  shall  abide  with  the 
Apostlesybr  ever  ;  which,  "  though  addressed  to  them,  as 
the  whole  sermon  at  our  Saviour's  last  supper  was,  yet,  like 

*  Epbcs.  iv.  14. 


70 

many  other  truths  contained  in  it,  could  not  regard  their 
persons  alone ;  for  they  were  not  to  live  for  ever ;  but  com- 
prehended likewise  all  those  who  were  to  succeed  them  in 
after  ages.  And  that  this  was  the  intent  of  our  Saviour's 
promise  appears  clearly  from  his  last  words  before  his  as- 
cension, recorded  by  St.  Matthew."*' 

These  words  of  St.  Matthew  are  in  part  cited  by  the 
Chaplain,  as  you  have  seen  ;  but  they  deserve  to  be  set  down 
at  large.  "  All  power  is  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and 
earth.  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations,  baptizing 
them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost,  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things  which- 
soever I  have  commanded  you ;  and  behold  I  am  with  you 
ALWAYS,  (in  the  Greek,  all  days^)  even  unto  the  end  of 
THE  WORLD,  "f  Here  surely  Christ  promises  to  be  per- 
petually, even  to  the  world's  end,  with  them,  who  were  to 
teach  and  baptize  all  nations.  Were  the  Apostles,  to  whom 
these  words  were  immediately  addressed,  to  perform  that 
function  for  ever?  He  orders  them,  and  consequently  their 
successors,  in  the  ministry  of  the  word,  to  teach  all  things^ 
whichsoever  he  had  commanded.  Does  not  this  evidently 
imply,  that  they  were  themselves  to  be  assisted  by  the 
Spirit  of  God,  to  discover  what  those  things  are?  or  did 
he  impose  upon  them  an  obligation,  without  affording  the 
means  of  compliance?  If  they  were  to  be  assisted  in  dis- 
covering and  teaching  all  things  delivered  by  Christ ;  if 
they  were  ordered  to  teach,  and  he  was  to  be  present  with 
them  in  the  ministry  of  teaching,  even  to  the  world's  end  ; 
does  not  this  import  a  correspondent  obligation  in  the  hear- 
ers, to  receive  and  embrace  the  doctrines  so  delivered? 
Will  any  one  say,  that,  before  he  embraces  them,  he  must 
be  assured  that  the  doctrines  which  he  hears,  are  the  things 
commanded  by  Jesus  Christ  ?  Will  he  say,  that  he  must 
be  satisfied,  they  are  agreeable  to  the  written  word  of  God? 

*  Shortest  Way,  &p.  sect.  2.      +  Matt,  xxviii,  19,  20. 


71 

1  will  answer  him,  that  by  this  proceeding  he  would  render 
the  connmission  of  teaching,  intrusted  by  Jesus  Christ  to 
his  Apostles  and  their  successors,  vain  and  nugatory  •  he 
would  transfer  the  ministry  from  them,  and  render  it  the 
duty  of  every  person  to  be  his  own  teacher ;  he  would  de- 
stroy the  divine  economy  of  the  Church,  in  which  Christ 
"  gave  some  Apostles,  and  some  prophets,  and  other  some 
evangelists,  and  other  some  pastors  and  doctors,  for  the 
perfecting  of  the  saints,  for  the  work  of  the  ministiy,  for 
the  edifying  of  the  body  of  Christ."  (Eph.  iv.  11,  12.) 
The  rational  inquiry  remaining,  after  a  conviction  of  the 
divinity  of  the  Christian  religion  is,  are  they,  who  deliver 
these  doctrines,  the  lawful  successors  of  the  Apostles  ? 
Can  they  trace  to  them  their  line  of  succession  ?  If  they 
can,  we  must  "  account  of  them  as  the  ministers  of  Christ, 
and  the  dispensers  of  the  mysteries  of  God,"*  from  whom 
we  may  learn  certainly  the  truth  of  the  Gospel.  For 
though  each  pastor  be  not  so  in  his  private  capacity,  yet, 
as  frir  as  he  teaches  us  in  concert  with  the  rest,  I  mean,  in- 
asmuch as  he  delivers  the  faith  of  the  Church,  in  that  re- 
spect he  is  infallible. 

The  Chaplain,  in  his  comments  upon  the  famous  passage 
of  Matt.  xvi.  18,  insinuated,  that,  (hough  the  gates  of 
hell  should  never  prevail  against  the  Church,  to  the  sup- 
pression of  the  points  of  faith,  deemed  by  him  fundamen- 
tal, yet  false  opinions  might  be  superinduced,  and  so  far 
error  might  prevail.  He  here  again  would  establish  the 
same  doctrine;  and  though  compelled,  by  the  evident  au- 
thority of  Scripture,  to  confess,  that  Christ  communicated 
infallibility  to  his  disciples,  he  thinks  this  no  security,  that 
their  successors  will  not  build  on  the  foundation  of  the 
Gospel  "  wood,  hay,  and  stubble."  If,  by  these  words,  the 
Chaplain  understand  corrupt  doctrines  in  faith  and  man- 
ners, it  is  plain,  from   the  very  expressions  of  Christ,  that 

*  1  Cor.  iv.  1. 


n 

he  is  mistaken.  For  all  truth  in  matters  of  faith  and  sal* 
vation,  into  which  the  Spirit  was  to  lead  them,  is  exclusive 
of  all  error  in  the  same  line.  In  a  word,  either  the  pro- 
mises of  the  assisting  Spirit  of  truth,  are  confined  to  the 
immediate  disciples  of  Christ,  or  not.  If  they  are,  then  we 
have  no  assurance  of  the  Church's  continuing  even  in  the 
profession  of  fundamental  points ;  if  not,  then  upon  what 
authority  are  the  promises  to  be  restrained  to  the  Church's 
being  guided  into  so7ne  truth,  when  they  expressly  de- 
clare, that  she  shall  be  guided  into  all  truth  ? 

But  is  not  Christ  "  with  his  Church,  by  his  protection, 
by  his  grace,  &;c  ?  Can  he  not  be  with  her  without  render- 
ing her  infallible  1  Is  he  not  with  every  just  man,"  &;c? 
Yes,  surely  ;  he  aifords  protection  and  grace  ;  he  might  not 
have  rendered  her  infallible;  but  when  he  informs  us,  that 
he  will  direct  his  Church  by  the  Spirit  of  truth,  conse- 
quently a  spirit  opposite  to  that  error;  when,  in  Matthew 
xxviii.  he  promises  to  the  pastors  of  his  Church  such  a 
kind  of  presence,  assistance,  and  guidance,  as  shall  qua- 
lify them  effectually  to  teach  all  those  things,  which  he 
himself  taught,  and  this  for  all  times  ;  shall  we  esteem  him 
to  be  no  otherwise  with  them,  than  with  particular  righte- 
ous men  ?  Where  has  he  ever  promised  these,  that  singu- 
lar and  uninterrupted  assistance  of  the  Spirit  of  truth  ? 
To  private  persons  the  Holy  Ghost  is  given,  as  the  Spirit 
of  sanctification  ;  but  to  the  Church,  as  the  Spirit  of  truth, 
as  well  as  sanctification,  guiding  her  into  all  truth,  and  di- 
rectly excluding  all  error  from  her. 

I  hope  it  will  now  appear  to  you,  that  the  proofs  of  the 
Church's  infallibilty,  from  St.  John  and  Matt,  xxviii.,  are 
not  invalidated  by  the  Chaplain's  objections.  I  have  ad- 
duced no  arguments  to  confirm  you  in  your  belief  of  this 
capital  doctrine;  but  meeting  the  Chaplain  on  his  own 
ground,  have  only  endeavoured  to  defend  it  from  his  objec- 
tions, whom  we  are  grieved  to  have  for  an  adversary  I 
forbear  to  allege  other  numerous  testimonies  of  Scripture, 
the  concurrent  authority  of  holy  fathers,  and  the  whole  con- 


73 

duct  of  Church  government,  from  the  very  days  of  the 
Apostles,  which  necessarily  supposes  this,  as  an  unques- 
tionable article  of  Christian  faith.  "  I  know  very  well,  that 
no  text  of  holy  Scripture  is  so  clear,  but  persons  of  much 
wit,  may  find  interpretations  to  perplex  it,  or  set  it  in  a 
false  light;  but  the  question  is  not,  whether  the  texts  1 
have  produced  may,  with  some  pain  and  study,  be  inter- 
preted otherwise  than  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  has  al- 
ways understood  them;  but  whether,  in  their  natural,  ob- 
vious, and  literal  sense,  they  do  not  lead  an  unbiassed 
reader  to  the  idea  and  belief  of  an  infallible  Church.  Now 
then  let  us  suppose,  that  the  contradictories  of  the  texts  I 
have  quoted  were  found  in  holy  writ.  As  for  instance, 
suppose  our  Saviour  had  said  to  St.  Peter,  '  I  will  not 
build  my  Church  upon  a  rock,  and  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
prevail  against  it.'  Suppose  he  had  said  to  his  Apostles, 
*  I  will  not  be  with  you  to  the  end  of  the  world.  I  will 
not  send  the  Holy  Ghost  to  abide  with  you  for  ever.  He 
shall  not  teach  you  all  things,  nor  lead  you  into  all  truth.' 
"Would  not  all  men  of  sound  sense  have  concluded  from 
such  texts,  that  there  is  no  such  a  thing  as  an  infallible 
Church  on  earth?  They  certainly  would,  because  the  na- 
tural and  obvious  meaning  of  them  is  so  plain,  that  it  is 
impossible  not  to  draw  that  consequence  from  them.  Now, 
if  one  part  of  two  contradictories,  cannot  but  force  a  man 
of  an  unbiassed  judgment  to  conclude  against  the  doctrine 
of  infallibility,  the  other  part  is  surely  of  equal  force,  to 
oblige  him  to  conclude  in  favour  of  it.  So  that  it  is  no- 
thing to  the  purpose,  whether  Protestants  can,  or  cannot 
strain  the  texts  I  have  produced,  from  their  natural  and  ob- 
vious meaning;  but  it  is  much  to  the  purpose  to  consider, 
whether  they  can  bring  any  evidence  from  Scripture  to  dis- 
prove the  infallibility  of  the  Church,  of  equal  strength  and 
clearness  to  the  texts  1  have  brought  to  prove  it."* 

*  Shortest  Way  to  end  Disputes,  chap.  1 ,  sect.  2. 
G 


74 

The  Chaplain's  argument  against  infallibility,  next  to  be 
considered,  is  that  which  he  truly  calls  a  hackneyed  one. 
After  reading  this  answer,  you  may  likewise  judge  whether 
it  be  a  conclusive  one. 

In  the  author  of  'Uhe  Case  stated  between  the  Church 
of  Rome  and  the  Church  of  England,"  the  argument  is 
thus  laid  down :  "  You  (Roman  Catholics)  believe  the 
Scriptures,  because  the  Church  bids  you  ;  and  you  believe 
the  Church,  because  the  Scriptures  bid  you."  And  he  tri- 
umphantly adds,  "  that  this  is  the  old  circle,  out  of  which 
we  can  never  conjure  ourselves." 

Let  us  now  first  examine  the  principles  of  logic,  and  find 
out  what  is  understood  by  a  vicious  circle.  We  shall  find 
it  to  be  that  kind  of  argument,  by  which  two  propositions 
reciprocally  prove  each  other ;  and  neither  of  them  is  proved 
by  any  other  medium  ;  as  if  a  man  were  to  attempt  to  prove 
that  a  stone  fell,  because  it  was  heavy ;  and  that  it  was 
heavy,  because  it  fell,  without  being  able  to  assign  any 
other  reasons,  either  of  its  falling  or  its  gravity.  But  if  its 
gravity  were  demonstrable  from  other  considerations,  then 
from  that  property  its  falling  might  justly  be  inferred  ;  and 
if  its  having  fallen  should,  for  instance,  be  attested  by 
credible  eye-witnesses,  its  gravity  might  be  deduced  from 
its  falling;  the  cause  in  this  instance  inferring  the  effect — 
and  the  effect  proving  the  existence  of  the  cause. 

Having  premised  so  much,  now  let  us  analyze  the  Ca- 
tholic faith,  and  see  if  we  reason  as  badly  as  the  Chaplain 
asserts. 

The  Catholic  reasoner  has  only  to  open  his  eyes,  and  he 
will  discover,  that  his  Church  is  in  the  practice  of  deter- 
mining controversies  of  faith,  by  the  concurrent  authority 
of  the  episcopal  body.  But  this  view  alone,  does  not  give 
him  any  undoubted  assurance  of  the  infallibility  of  her  de- 
terminations. He  is  led,  therefore,  next  to  consider,  when 
the  Church  first  exercised  this  authority.  Did  she  assume 
it  in  ages  of  darkness  and  ignorance?  Did  she  usurp  it  with 


75 

a  high  hand,  contrary  to  the  usage  of  the  first  ages?  What 
information  will  the  Christian  collect  in  the  course  of  this 
inquiry  ?  He  will  find  living  monuments  of  this  prerogative 
being  always  exercised,  even  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles, 
and  throughout  every  succeeding  age.  1  say,  living  monu- 
ments;  for  they  are  now  subsisting;  and  still  afford  as  evi- 
dent proof  of  the  exercise  of  the  authority,  as  if  the  facts 
had  passed  in  our  own  time,  and  within  our  own  memory; 
or  as  full  proof  as  we  have,  of  the  courts  of  judicature  of 
this  state,  having  heretofore  decided  the  legal  controversies 
of  the  citizens  thereof.  For  instance,  the  abrogating  of 
eircamcision,  and  other  observances  of  the  Jewish  law,  is 
a  still  subsisting  monument  of  the  power  of  deciding  being 
claimed  and  exercised  by  the  Church.  Such  likewise  is 
the  custom  of  not  rebaptizing  persons  baptized  by  heretics; 
such  is  the  Nicene  creed,  and  particularly  the  word  consub- 
stantial,  making  part  of  it.  These  monuments,  to  omit  in- 
numerable others,  owe  their  existence  to  the  exercise  of 
the  definitive  authority  of  the  Church  in  matters  of  faith. 
The  inquiring  Christian  will  farther  discover  a  most  con- 
spicuous monument  of  it,  in  the  canon  of  holy  Scripture. 
Many  books  therein  received  were  some  time  doubted  of; 
others  were  contended  for  which  are  now  rejected.  The 
Church  interposed  her  authority,  and  the  canon  of  Scripture 
became  established.  On  these  facts,  palpable,  manifest, 
and  of  public  notoriety,  the  Christian  will  reason  thus : 
The  Church,  even  from  the  Apostles'  time,  has  always  ex- 
ercised the  authority  of  deciding  controverted  points ;  her 
interposition  would  be  of  no  avail,  if  her  authority  were 
not  to  be  considered  as  definitive  and  infallible.  The  pri- 
mitive Christians  so  considered  it.  Whoever  refused  sub- 
mission was  cast  from  the  Church,  and  reputed  as  a  heathen 
and  publican.  On  these  grounds  will  the  Christian  be  in- 
duced to  believe  her  infallibility ;  happy,  that  his  belief 
ajise  not  fronj  a  series  of  abstruse  reasoning,  but  is  built 
upon  public,  notorious  facts,  within  the  reach  of  the  most 


76 

common  understanding.  The  Church  has  always,  from  the 
first  era  of  Christianity,  exercised  the  right  of  judging  in 
matters  of  faith,  and  requiring  obedience  to  her  decisions ; 
the  monuments  attesting  it  are  certain  and  visible.  The 
exercise  of  such  a  right,  without  infallibility,  would  be  vain 
and  nugatory  ;  therefore  she  is  infallible.  After  thus  dis- 
covering her  infallibility  upon  the  evidence  of  notorious 
facts,  it  is  a  subject  of  much  comfort  to  the  sincere  Chris- 
tian, as  well  as  a  confirmation  of  his  faith,  to  find  the  same 
truth  attested  by  the  words  of  Scripture ;  and  having  be- 
fore believed  it  for  the  evidence  just  mentioned,  he  now 
likewise  believes  it  for  the  authority  of  Scripture,  at  the 
same  time  that  he  believes  Scripture  for  the  authority  of 
the  Church.  Where  now  is  the  circle  of  false  reasoning? 
Is  not  infallibility  first  demonstrated  from  other  considera- 
tions, before  it  is  demonstrated  from  Scripture  ?  And  is  not 
this  alone,  in  the  principles  of  sound  logic,  sufficient  to  de- 
stroy the  magic  of  this  famous  circle,  and  the  argument 
built  upon  it  ?  But  indeed  this  argument  is  many  ways  vul- 
nerable, and  you  may  find  it  otherwise  destroyed  in  the 
authors  referred  to  in  the  note.* 

One  word  more  concerning  this  hackneyed  argument;, 
and  we  will  be  done  with  it.  Let  it  be  taken  for  granted, 
that  our  process  of  reasoning  runs  round  a  circle  ;  a  deist, 
an  infidel,  a  disbeliever  of  Scripture,  might  with  propriety 
object  to  it.  But  how  can  the  Chaplain  do  so,  or  any  per- 
son professing  his  belief  of  Scripture  infallibility  ?  For, 
admitting  this  infallibility,  he  admits  one  of  the  proposi- 
tions, which  reciprocally  prove  each  other  ;  and  therefore, 
in  arguing  against  him,  we  may  logically  infer  the  Church's 
infallibility  from  texts  of  Scripture  ;  it  bein^  a  common 
principle  with  us  both,  that  Scripture  is  divinely  inspired; 

and  no  one  is  bound  to  prove  a  principle  admitted  by  his 
adversary. 

*  The  true  Church  of  Christ,  p.  2.  ch.  3.  sect.  3.    Shortest  Way^  &c.  p .  2. 
sect.  2.  *^  1^        ir 


7Y 

The  Chaplain  produces  against  the  Church's  infallibility 
another  argument,  which  he  might  likewise  have  called  a 
hackneyed  one ;  for  it  has  been  urged  with  great  perse- 
verance by  our  adversaries.  He  says,  that  "  all  Roman 
Catholics  are  bound  to  admit  an  infallible  authority ;  yet 
few  of  them  agree,  where,  or  in  whom,  it  resides."  When 
I  have  met  with  this  argument  in  the  writings  of  opponents, 
little  acquainted  with  our  principles,  of  whom  there  are 
many,  it  has  not  surprised  me.  But  that  the  Chaplain 
should  likewise  insist  upon  it,  is  really  matter  of  astonish- 
ment. For  he  must  know,  that  in  the  doctrine  which  we 
teach,  as  belonging  to  faith  in  this  point,  and  as  an  article 
of  communion,  there  is  no  variation ;  and  with  all  his  read- 
ing and  recollection,  I  will  venture  to  assert,  that  he  cannot 
cite  one  Catholic  divine,  who  denies  infallibility  to  reside 
in  the  body  of  bishops,  united  and  agreeing  with  their 
head,  the  bishop  of  Rome.  So  that,  when  the  Chaplain 
says,  that "  some  schoolmen  have  taught  the  infallibility  of 
the  pope — some  place  it  in  a  general  council ;  others  in 
the  pope  and  council,  received  by  the  whole  Church,"  he 
is  under  a  great  mistake ;  for  the  last  is  not  a  mere  opin- 
ion of  schoolmen,  but  the  constant  belief  of  all  Catholics  ; 
a  belief,  in  which  there  is  no  variation.  Some  divines,  in- 
deed, hold  the  pope,  as  Christ's  vicar  on  earth,  to  be  infal- 
lible, even  without  a  council ;  but  with  this  opinion  faith 
has  no  concern,  every  one  being  at  liberty  to  adopt  or  re- 
ject it,  as  the  reasons  for  or  against  may  affect  him. 

The  Chaplain  adds  in  the  same  place,  that,  since  the 

Council    of  Trent,    many  things  have    been  unanimously 

taught  respecting  the  pope's  authority,  which  are,  I  own, 

new  to  me,  and  which,  I  confidently  aver,  he  cannot   make 

good.     Nay,  so  far  are  they  from  being  taught  unanimously 

since  the  Council  of  Trent,  that  they  are  not  taught  at  all, 

for  instance,  in  France  ;  and  are  expressly  contradicted  by 

the  maxims  and   solemn   determinations  of  the   Gallican 

clergy,  in  the  year  1782  j  to   which  maxims  and  determi- 

62 


78 

nations  the  theological  schools  there  have  constantly  con- 
formed. 

Nor  is  it  only  in  France,  that  many  of  the  doctrines  are 
rejected,  which,  he  says,  are  taught  unanimously  amongst 
us ;  but  they  are  exploded  in  every  Catholic  country  in  the 
world.  The  body  of  bishops  every  where  claim  a  divine 
right,  in  virtue  of  their  ordination,  to  interpret  the  decrees 
of  councils,  and  the  ordinances  of  the  popes.  The  Chap- 
lain having  discarded  his  former  religion,  appears  likewise 
to  have  erased  from  his  memory,  the  theological  principles 
of  our  schools. 

He  concludes  his  note  with  a  curious  piece  of  reasoning. 
"  A  Christian,"  he  says,  "  may  mistake  the  words  of  a 
pope,  (the  meaning  of  the  words,  I  presume,)  as  easily  as 
he  can  mistake  the  words  of  Scripture."  So,  undoubtedly, 
he  may  ;  and,  for  this  very  reason,  a  living  authority  is 
necessary  to  explain  uncertainties,  to  remove  ambiguities. 
But  perhaps  he  means  to  carry  his  argument  into  the  very 
heart  of  our  principles,  and  deny  that  even  a  living  autho- 
rity can  speak  a  language  clear  enough  to  determine  doubts 
and  convict  obstinacy.  But  few  will  be  persuaded  that 
the  powers  of  living  language  are  so  limited  ;  as  well  might 
he  attempt  to  persuade  us,  that  when  parties  litigate  on  the 
interpretation  of  the  law,  the  judges  cannot  deliver  sen- 
tence in  terms  clear  enough  to  determine  the  controversy. 

You  have  hitherto  seen  the  Chaplain  endeavour  to  dis- 
prove the  Church's  infallibility,  by  his  interpretation  of 
certain  passages  of  Scripture,  and  by  discovering  fallacies 
and  inconsistencies  in  our  doctrine  on  this  subject.  Not 
content  with  thus  attacking  this  capital  tenet  of  our  reli- 
gion, he  sets  about  to  prove  that  the  Church  may  err,  be- 
cause in  fact  she  has  erred.  To  show  it,  he  alleges,  1st. 
That  she  formerly  taught  doctrines  as  of  faith,  which  she 
now  rejects  as  contrary  to  faith.  2dly.  She  suppressed  for 
a  time  certain  tenets,  which  ought  to  have  been  taught  at 
all  times,  or  not  taught  at  all.     3dly.  She  requires  a  belief 


79 

of  things  which  are  not  contained  in  Scripture,  as  is  ac- 
knowledged even  by  some  of  our  own  divines. 

How  does  he  prove  the  first  of  these  charges  ?  By  as- 
serting that  "  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium,"  now  reject- 
ed by  the  Church,  "  was  maintained  as  an  article  of  the 
Catholic  faith  by  almost  every  father  who  lived  immedi- 
ately after  the  times  of  the  Apostles."  In  opposition  to 
this  very  positive  assertion,  I  will  take  upon  me  to  say,  that 
not  one  of  the  primitive  fathers  held  the  opinion  here  men- 
tioned, as  an  article  of  Catholic  faith  and  communion.  At 
the  very  time  of  its  prevalence  (for  it  was  indeed  adopted 
by  Irenaeus,  Justin  the  Martyr,  &;c.)  it  was  combatted  by 
others  not  less  zealously  attached  to  the  Church's  commu- 
nion, as  is  acknowledged  even  by  Justin  himself,  who, 
speaking  of  the  millennium,  says  :  "  I  have  already  con- 
fessed to  you,  O  Trypho,  that  I,  and  many  others  of  the 
same  mind  with  me,  do  think  it  will  come  to  pass ;  but  I 
have  also  signified  that  many  who  are  of  pure  and  pious 
Christian  sentiments  do  not  think  so."*  Do  these  words 
indicate,  that  the  millennarian  doctrine  was  maintained  as 
an  article  of  the  Catholic  faith  ^  by  almost  every  primitive 
father,  as  is  asserted  by  the  Chaplain  ?  Do  they  not  clearly 
prove,  that  even  its  ablest  advocates,  amongst  whom  Justin 
surely  was,  did  not  consider  it  as  such,  but  as  an  opinion 
open  to  discussion  and  contradiction?  And,  accordingly, 
Eusebius,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  cites  passages  of  a 
work  written  against  this  doctrine  in  the  very  beginning  of 
the  third  century,  by  Caius,  a  Catholic  priest,f  the  co-tem- 
porary of  Justin  and  Irenasus. 

I  need  take  no  notice  of  what  the  Chaplain  adds,:}^  that 
"  it  was  the  decided  opinion  of  almost  all  the  primitive 
fathers,  that  the  souls  of  good  men  did  not  enjoy  the  beati- 
fic vision  previous  to  the  general  resurrection  ;"  for  since 
he  does  not  say,  that  this  opinion  ever  became  an  article  of 

*  Just.  Mart.  Dial.  cum.  Tryph.  p.  306.  edit.  Colon,  arm.  1687. 
t  Euseb.  Hist.  Eccl.  1.  3.  c.  28.    \  Note,  ibid. 


80 

Catholic  faith,  as  it  certainly  never  did,  I  may  be  allowed 
to  suspend  any  investigation  of  this  subject,  which  has 
been  ably  and  solidly  discussed  by  Bellarmine  long  ago.* 

The  Chaplain  argues,  secondly,  that  the  Church  has 
erred,  "  because  she  regards  some  articles  at  present  as 
articles  of  faith,  which  for  many  ages  were  debated  as  mat- 
ters of  opinion."  This  we  freely  admit;  and,  I  hope, 
without  any  prejudice  to  the  claim  of  infallibility  :  though 
the  Chaplain  thinks,  that  a  very  forcible  argument  arises 
from  this  fact ;  for  these  doctrines  having  been  delivered 
by  Jesus  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  either  as  essential  or  not ; 
if  the  first,  she  forfeited  her  claim  to  infallibility  by  omit- 
ting to  teach  them  for  many  ages ;  and  if  the  second,  she 
equally  forfeits  it  by  imposing,  as  necessary  to  be  believed, 
what  neither  Christ  nor  his  Apostles  did  so  teach. 

Before  I  proceed  to  a  direct  answer,  it  may  be  proper  to 
premise,  that  the  distinction  of  essentials  and  not  essentials; 
fundamentals  and  not  fundamentals  in  faith,  to  which  the 
Chaplain  so  often  recurs,  is  not  admitted  by  us  in  his  sense, 
and  that  of  other  Protestant  authors.  We  hold  all  revealed 
doctrines,  when  sufficiently  proposed  to  our  understanding, 
to  be  essential  in  this  respect,  that  under  pain  of  disobe- 
dience and  heresy,  we  are  bound  to  believe  and  submit  our 
understanding  to  them ;  and  the  reason  is,  because  we  con- 
ceive of  all  doctrines  so  proposed,  that  they  are  revealed 
by  God,  who  neither  can  err,  nor  lead  into  error.  Now, 
whether  the  doctrine  be  in  its  own  nature,  or  in  our  esti- 
mation, of  great  importance,  or  not,  it  equally  claims  our 
assent,  if  divine  authority  is  pledged  for  the  truth  of  it. 
In  another  sense,  indeed,  some  points  of  faith,  are  more 
essential  and  fundamental  than  others;  for  without  our 
knowledge,  or,  indeed,  without  any  revelation  of  some  of 
them,  Christianity  might  subsist ;  whereas,  other  points  are 
so  interwoven  with  the  system  and  economy  of  it,  that  the 

*  Bell,  de  Sanct.  Beatilud.  1. 1. 


81 

explicit  profession  and  belief  of  them  is  implied  in  the 
very  idea  of  a  Christian.  But,  as  I  before  said,  they  both 
rest  upon  the  same  authority,  that  is,  the  word  of  God  ;  and 
demand  an  equally  firm  assent,  when  sufficiently  proposed 
to  our  understanding.  Why  are  we  obliged  to  believe 
every  fact  and  circumstance  contained  in  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  as  soon  as  we  come  to  the  knowledge  of  it?  Is 
it  because  nothing  therein  is  related  which  does  not  affect 
the  very  vitals  of  Christianity  ?  or  is  it  not  rather,  because 
divine  authority  is  pledged  for  the  entire  truth  of  the 
Scripture  ? 

This  leads  to  a  plain  answer  to  the  objection.  All  doc- 
trines taught  by  Christ  and  his  Apostles,  were  delivered  as 
necessary  to  be  believed,  whenever  the  faithful  should  re- 
ceive sufficient  evidence  of  their  divine  revelation.  But 
till  they  had  that  evidence,  the  belief  was  not  obligatory ; 
and  Christians  were  at  liberty  to  discuss  the  doctrines  with 
all  freedom,  provided  they  did  so  in  an  habitual  disposition 
to  submit  to  the  authority  established  by  Jesus  Christ, 
whenever  it  should  interfere  in  determining  the  uncertainty. 
So,  before  the  holding  of  the  first  council  at  Jerusalem, 
some  true  Christians  maintained  circumcision  to  be  neces- 
sary.* And  "  when  the  Apostles  and  ancients  came  toge- 
ther to  consider  of  this  matter,  there  was  much  disputing." 
But  after  the  decision  of  the  council,  "  it  pleased  the  Apos- 
tles and  the  ancients,  with  the  whole  Church,"  to  issue  their 
letter  or  decree  against  the  necessity  of  circumcision,  to 
which  decree  all  were  now  obliged  to  submit,  under  pain 
of  heresy.  Here  I  would  fain  ask,  if  there  were  no  true 
Catholicity  of  belief  before  this  council ;  and  whether  this 
decision  destroyed  the  unity  of  Christ's  Church.  For  after 
the  decision,  all  true  Christians  "  believed,  as  an  article  of 
faith,  what  they  before  conceived  to  be  matter  of  opinion.'' 

The  Chaplain's  formidable  dilemma  turns  out  therefore  a 

*  Acts  XV.  1. 


82 

very  harmless  one  ;  the  doctrines  he  refers  to  were  deliver- 
ed as  essential,  that  is,  I  suppose,  essentially  to  be  believed, 
whenever  they  came  to  be  sufficiently  proposed,  as  revealed 
by  God  ;  but  they  were  not  essentially  to  be  believed,  till 
they  were  so  proposed.  And  the  Church,  ever  guided  by 
the  Spirit  of  God,  sees  when  the  dangers  threatening  her 
children,  from  false  prophets  arising  and  seducing  many, 
(Matt.  xxiv.  11,)  call  upon  her  to  examine  the  faith  com- 
mitted to  her  keeping,  and  preserved  in  holy  Scripture  and 
the  chain  of  tradition.  In  these  perilous  moments  she  un- 
folds the  doctrines,  and  presents  them  to  Christians  as  pre- 
servatives from  the  delusions  of  novelty,  the  refinements  of 
false  philosophy,  and  the  misinterpretations  of  private  and 
presumptuous  judgment.  Thus,  when  Arius  and  his  fol- 
lowers endeavoured  to  establish  principles  subversive  of 
the  divinity  of  the  Son  of  God,  to  check  the  growth  of  this 
error,  the  Church  defined  clearly  and  explicitly,  his  consub- 
stantiality  with  the  Father.  Previous  to  which  decision, 
the  faithful  contented  themselves  with  acknowledging  his 
divine  nature ;  but  that  the  belief  of  it  included  consub- 
stantiality,  was  not  yet  sufliciently  proposed  to  them,  and 
therefore  could  not  be  an  object  of  their  faith. 

The  principles  indeed  of  the  Chaplain  would,  if  admit- 
ted, clearly  prove,  that  neither  his,  nor  the  faith  of  any  one, 
who  admits  all  the  books  of  Scripture,  is  the  same  with 
that  of  the  first  Christians  ;  nay,  more,  that  the  faith  of 
these  last  was  continually  changing,  as  long  as  the  Apostles 
were  alive.  For  he  lays  it  down,  that  if  any  points  are 
believed,  as  essential,  to-day,  which  formerly  were  not  so 
believed,  there  is  no  longer  a  unity  of  faith.  Now,  the 
Apostles  at  distant  periods  of  their  lives  sent  epistles  and 
instructions  to  the  different  Churches,  which  they  then,  and 
we  now,  receive  as  of  divine  inspiration.  But  did  they  not 
from  these  writings  collect  information,  which  they  had  not 
before  ?  and  did  they  not  believe  the  information  given,  as 
infallibly  true?     For  instance,  when  St.  Paul  wrote  his 


83 

second  epistle  to  the  Thessalonians,  did  they  not  understand 
from  it,  contrary  to  what  they  had  before  conceived,  that 
the  last  general  judgment  was  not  immediately  to  happen  ? 
If  so,  then  was  their  faith  (according  to  the  Chaplain)  no 
longer  the  same  it  had  been.  Moreover,  some  of  Christ's 
flock  died  before  any,  and  many  more  before  all  the  Apos- 
tles ;  St.  John,  it  is  known,  lived  upwards  of  sixty  years 
after  his  master's  death,  and  wrote  his  Revelation  and  his 
Gospel  a  very  little  while  before  his  own.  It  follows  then 
again,  that  the  Christians  who  died  without  having  either 
seen  or  heard  of  his  Gospel,  or  Revelation,  had  not  the 
same  faith  with  those  who  afterwards  saw  and  believed 
them.  These  consequences  may  be  extended  much  far- 
ther; and,  by  adhering  to  the  principles  of  the  Chaplain, 
it  may  be  shown,  that  for  many  ages  Christians  either  did 
not  believe  essential  doctrines,  or  that  it  is  not  essential 
now  to  admit  many  books  of  Scripture,  which,  nevertheless, 
he  who  should  reject  would  not  be  deemed  a  Christian. 
For  it  is  notorious  that,  long  after  the  Apostles'  time,  seve- 
ral Scriptural  books  were  of  uncertain  authority,  the  authors 
of  them  not  being  ascertained  ;  as,  for  instance,  the  Reve- 
lation, the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  second  of  St.  Peter, 
the  second  and  third  of  St.  John,  those  of  St.  Jude  and  St. 
James.  During  all  this  time,  therefore,  it  was  not  essential 
to  believe  these  writings  to  be  divinely  inspired  ;  but  will 
the  Chaplain  say,  that  it  is  not  now  essential  to  believe  it  ? 
What  would  one  of  liis  controversial  heroes.  Dr.  Hurd,  say, 
if  we  were  to  deny  the  authority  of  St.  John's  Revelation  ? 
For  though  I  have  not  had  an  opportunity  to  see  his  dis- 
courses on  the  prophecies,  yet  I  conclude,  from  the  occasion 
of  his  preaching  them,  that  the  Revelation  has  furnished 
him  his  arguments,  such  as  they  are,  to  prove  the  apostacy 
of  papal  Rome,  as  it  did  his  predecessor  Jurieu,  whose  re- 
veries the  illustrious  Bossuet  exposed  as  completely  as,  I 


84 

doubl  not,  all  those  of  the  lecturers  of  the  Warburton  foun- 
dation* will  one  day  be. 

To  revert  to  our  subject :  Was  all  unity  of  faith  destroy- 
ed in  the  Church,  when  the  above  mentioned  books  of 
Scripture  were  received  into  the  canon  ?  For  it  is  certain 
that  some  things  were  then  required  to  be  believed,  which 
before  were  not  required.  After  St.  John  published  his 
Gospel,  wherein  are  contained  many  things  not  related  by 
the  other  Evangelists,  did  not  these  things  became  objects  of 
faith,  which  before  had  not  been  so  ?  As  long  as  the 
Apostles  lived,  and  preached,  and  wrote  to  the  Churches, 
"  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things,  whichsoever  their 
Divine  Master  had  commanded  them,"  (Matt,  xxviii.  21,) 
did  not  new  matter  continually  arise  to  exercise  the  faith  of 
their  disciples?  If  then  it  be  any  objection  to  a  "living 
authority,  that  the  number  of  necessary  tenets  must  in- 
crease, as  decisions  multiply,"  the  objection  is  as  strong 
against  the  authority  of  the  Apostles,  which  the  Chaplain 
admits,  as  against  that  of  a  Church  equally  endowed  with 
infallibility  in  deciding  on  faith  and  morals. 

The  Chaplain's  reasonings,  from  page  26  to  page  29,  pro- 
perly belong  to  the  division  we  are  now  considering;  but 
being  desirous  to  place  all  his  objections  to  particular  tenets 
of  our  Church  in  one  point  of  view,  I  shall  arrange  them 
under  the  last  division.  On  this  1  shall  enter,  after  no- 
ticing that  the  Chaplain,  in  the  conclusion  of  his  argument, 
indulges  himself  in  some  declamation,  which  however  car- 
ries no  weight  in  it,  as  long  as  the  Church's  claim  to  infal- 
libility is  not  invalidated  by  other  arguments,  than  those 
we  have  seen.  For,  supposing  that  claim  well  supported, 
his  forebodings  can  never  come  to  pass ;  and  our  faith  has 
nothing  to  fear  from  the  additions  of  any  future  Pope  Pius. 


*  Dr.  Warburton,  late  bishop  of  Gloucester,  founded  an  annual  course  of 
lectures,  to  prove  the  apostacy  of  papal  Rome.  Dr.  Kurd's  discourses  were 
the  first  on  this  occasion. 


S5 

And  here,  by  the  bye,  it  must  be  remarked,  that  though  an 
intimation  is  thrown  out,  that  Pius  IV.,  in  his  famous 
creed,  imposed  new  doctrines ;  yet  every  article  of  that 
creed  was,  long  before  him,  a  point  of  our  belief.  This  is 
known  to  every  person  conversant  in  the  history  of  religion, 
and  is  candidly  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Bramhall,  the  Pro- 
testant Archbishop  of  Armagh,  in  his  reply  to  the  bishop  of 
Chalcedon  :  "  For,"  says  he,  "  those  very  points,  which 
Pius  IV.  comprehended  in  a  new  symbol  or  creed,  were 
obtruded  upon  us  before  by  his  predecessors,  as  necessary 
articles  of  the  Roman  faith,  and  required  as  necessary  arti- 
cles of  their  communion." 

To  prove  that  the  Church  has  fallen  into  error,  it  is  urged 
in  the  third  place,  as  was  noticed  above,  that  she  requires 
a  belief  of  tenets,  which  even  some  of  our  own  celebrated 
divines,  acknowledge  either  not  to  be  "  found  at  all  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  at  least  delivered  in  them  with  great  obscu- 
rity ;"  and  instances  are  given  in  the  doctrines  of  transub- 
stantiation  and  purgatory,  auricular  confession  and  the 
power  of  loosening  and  binding,  or  absolution.  These  shall 
now  be  distinctly  considered,  as  far  as  is  necessary  to  vin- 
dicate them  from  the  Chaplain's  objections.  For  I  propose 
proceeding  here,  as  before,  concerning  infallibility  ;  that  is, 
I  shall  not  pretend  to  allege  other  proofs  of  these  contested 
doctrines,  than  such  as  may  arise  from  the  purely  defensive 
system  I  have  adopted  ;  and,  God  be  praised,  the  grounds 
of  our  faith  are  so  solid,  that,  I  trust,  the  cause  of  truth  and 
religion  will  not  be  injured,  even  in  my  hands,  by  this  mode 
of  repelling  the  attacks  made  against  them. 

But  first,  supposing  it  true,  as  the  divines  mentioned 
by  the  Chaplain  are  alleged  to  have  said,  that  the  tenets 
above  cited,  are  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture,  does  it  follow, 
that  they  were  not  revealed  by  Jesus  Christ?  With  what 
right  does  the  Chaplain  assume  as  a  principle,  that  God 
communicated  nothing  more  to  his  Church,  than  is  con- 

H 


86 

tained  in  his  written  word  ?  He  knows  that  we  have  alwayif 
asserted,  that  the  whole  word  of  God,  unwritten,  as  well  as 
written,  is  the  Christian's  rule  of  faith.     It  was  incumbent 
then  on  him,  before  he  discarded  this  rule,  to  prove  either, 
that  no  more  was  revealed,  than  is  written  ;  or  that  revealed 
doctrines  derive  their  claim  to  our  belief,  not  from  God's 
infallible  testimony,  but  from  their  being  reduced  to  writing. 
He  has  not  attempted  this ;  and  I  will  venture  to  say,  he 
would  have  attempted  it  in  vain,  even  with  the  assistance 
of  his  Chillingworth.     Happy  indeed   it  is  for  mankind, 
that  no  efforts  to  this  purpose  can  succeed ;  for  if  the  Ca- 
tholic rule  of  faith  could  be  proved  unsafe,  what  security 
have  we  for  the  authenticity,  the  genuineness,  the  incor- 
ruptibility of  Scripture  itself?   How  do  we  know,  but  by 
the  tradition,  that  is,  by  the  living  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  which  are  the  true  and  genuine  gospels?  Can  the 
Chaplain,  with  all  his  ingenuity,  devise,  for  instance,  any 
other  solid  motive,  besides  this  already  mentioned,  for  ad- 
mitting the  Gospel  of  St.  Matthew  into  the  canonical  writ- 
ings? This  Gospel,  according  to  the  general  opinion,  was 
written  in  the  vulgar  Hebrew,  or  Syriac.     The   original 
text  has  been  lost  so  long,  that  no  traces  of  it  remain  ;  who 
translated  it  into  Greek  is  quite  uncertain.     Now,  where 
is  the  written  word  of  God  assuring  us  of  the  correspond- 
ence of  this  translation  with  the  original  ?  Where  shall  we 
find,  but  in  the  tradition,  that  is,  in  the  public  invariable 
doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church,  any  sufficient  reason  for 
admitting  the  faithfulness  of  the  translator?  Why  shall  we 
not  reject  it,  as  some   early  heretics  did  the  Manichseans, 
Marcionists,   Cerdonists,  &;c?     1   mention    St.    Matthew's 
gospel,  as  coming  first  to  my  mind;  but  the  argument  is 
applicable  to  other  parts  of  Scripture,  and  to  some  with 
much  greater  force.     The  testimony,  therefore,  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church,  certified  in  the  tradition  of  all  ages,  is  the 
ground,  upon  which  we  and  others  admit  the  divine  autho- 


87 

rity  of  holy  writ.*     I  do  not  suppose,  that  the  Chaplain, 
after  rejecting  the  Church's  infallibility,  will  place  it,  for 
the  discrimination  of  true  and  false  Gospels,  in  an  inward 
light  administered  to  each  sincere  inquirer.     I  should  be 
indeed  greatly  mistaken  in  him,  if  he  entertain  any  such 
fanatical   notions ;    his  own  Chillingworth  would  rise  up 
against  him.     But  if  the   testimony  and   tradition  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  is  to  be  necessarily  admitted  for  receiving 
the  Scripture  itself,  which,  according  to  him,  is  the  sole 
standard,  the  only  rule  of  Protestant  belief,  why  is  her  tes- 
timony to  be  rejected,  when  offered  in  evidence  of  other 
points  of  faith  ?   Why  not  as  well  admit  it  in  favour  of  tran- 
substantiation  and  purgatory,  as  of  the  lawfulness  of  infant 
baptism,  of  the  validity  of  baptism  administered  by  heretics, 
of  the  obligation   of  abstaining  on  Sundays  from  servile 
works,  &c  1  Scripture  authority,  for  these  and  other  points 
admitted  by  Protestants,  there  is  certainly  none  ;  and  they, 
who  have  attempted  to  offer  any,  have  only  betrayed  the 
weakness  and  nakedness  of  their  cause.     Wherefore  St. 
Chrysostom,  as  I  find  him  repeatedly  quoted  by  authors, 
whose  accuracy  I  cannot  doubt,  commenting  on  these  words 
of  St.  Paul,  "  Stand  and  hold  the  traditions  you  have  been 
taught,  whether  by  word  or  by  our  epistle,"  (2  Thess.  ii. 
14,  alias  15.)  observes,  that  "  it  is  plain,  that  the  Apostles 
did  not  deliver  all  things  in  writing,  but  many  things  with- 
out it;  and  these  ought  to  be  believed,  as  much  as  those; 
let  us  then  give  credit  to  the  tradition  of  the  Church."t     I 
have  in  preference  cited  this  holy  father  in  support  of  the 
Catholic  doctrine,  not  because    numerous  testimonies  of 
others  are  wanting,  both  more  ancient,  and,  if  possible, 
more  full  and  express;  but  because  the  Chaplain  in  a  note, 
insists  much  upon  two  remarkable  passages,  which,  he  says, 
are  taken  from  the  works  of  this  eminent  doctor. 

*  See  this  acknowledged  by  Dr.  Cosin,  bishop  of  Durham,  in  his  Scholastic 
History  of  the  Canon  of  Scripture,  ch.  1.  sect.  8.  edit.  London,  1672- 
t  Chrys.  hom>  3.  in  2  Thess.  2. 


88 

I  will  not  deny,  that  I  was  surprised  when  1  read  the 
first  passage  cited  by  the  Chaplain  ;  it  appeared  so  opposite 
to  the  principles  which  St.  Chrysostom  had  laid  down  in 
several  parts  of  his  works.  It  was  a  mortifying  circum- 
stance, that  I  could  not  conveniently  have  recourse  to  that 
holy  doctor's  writings,  nor  minutely  examine  the  passage 
objected,  together  with  its  context.  I  procured  a  friend  to 
examine  the  edition  of  Chrysostom's  works,  belonging  to 
the  public  library  at  Annapolis ;  he  has  carefully  and  re- 
peatedly read  the  49th  homily  on  St.  Matthew  ;  and  not 
one  syllable  of  the  Chaplain's  citation  is  to  be  found  in  it. 
After  receiving  this  notice,  I  was  for  some  time  doubtful, 
whether  it  might  not  be  owing  to  a  difference  in  the  edi- 
tions. I  could  not  persuade  myself,  that  he,  who  so  so- 
lemnly calls  heaven  to  witness  for  the  impartiality  and  in- 
tegrity of  his  inquiry,  would  publicly  expose  himself  to  a 
well-grounded  imputation  of  unpardonable  negligence,  in  a 
matter  of  such  serious  concern.  But  I  have  now  the  fullest 
evidence,  that  the  passage,  for  which  Chrysostom  on  Mat- 
thew, hom.  49,  is  quoted,  is  not  taken  from  that  father.  It 
is  extracted  from  a  work  of  no  credit,  supposed  to  be  writ- 
ten in  the  sixth  century,  entitled,  "The  unfinished  work 
on  Matthew."*  But  had  it  even  been  fairly  quoted  from 
him,  the  Chaplain  would  not  have  had  so  much  cause  for 
triumph,  as  he  imagines.  For  the  passage  he  adduces  car- 
ries with  it  equal  condemnation  of  the  Protestant  and  Ca- 
tholic rule  of  faith.  It  asserts,  that  it  is  only  then  necessary 
to  discover  by  Scripture  alone.,  which  is  the  true  Church  of 
Christ,  when  heresy  has  all  outward  observances  in  common 
with  her.     But  if  the  outward  observances  are  not  the  same, 

*  Opus  imperfectum  in  Matlhceum.  The  author  adopts  the  Manichaean, 
the  Montanist,  and  Arian  heresies.  In  the  first  homily,  he  says  that  marriage 
is  a  sin.  In  the  32d,  that  marriage  is  only  an  honourable  fornication ;  in  the 
49th,  he  calls  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  the  homousian, 
or  consubstanliation  heresy. 


89 

\f  the  Church  and  heresy  do  not  agree  in  offering  the  same 
unbloody  sacrifice;  in  administering  the  same  sacraments; 
in  the  apostolical  and  uninterrupted  succession  of  their 
clergy ;  in  their  liturgy,  their  hierarchy,  the  whole  frame 
of  their  ecclesiastical  government,  &c.  then  it  may  be 
evinced  by  various  means,  other  than  Scripture,  which  is  the 
true  Church  of  Christ.  But  will  this  be  admitted  by  the 
Chaplain,  who  adopts  the  holy  Scripture  for  the  sole  stand- 
ard of  his  belief?  Will  it  be  admitted  by  the  Protestant 
Churches  in  general,  ivhich  know  no  other  rule  ?  See  then 
how  unsuccessfully  this  authority  turns  out  for  the  Chaplain. 
In  the  first  place,  it  lays  him  under  the  reproach  of  a  want 
of  impartial  diligence ;  and,  2dly,  If  it  militate  against  us, 
it  is  equally  adverse  to  that  religion,  of  which  he  now  pro- 
fesses himself  a  member. 

The  disrepute  of  alleging  the  authority  of  Chrysostom  so 
erroneously,  will  not  be  compensated  by  the  other  passage, 
for  which  he  likewise  is  cited :  and  which,  indeed,  I  find 
to  be  noticed  by  Bellarmine,  as  genuine ;  but  he  observes, 
that  Chrysostom  is  not  discoursing  of  doctrines  obscurely 
delivered,  or  contested  amongst  different  sects  of  Chris- 
tians ;  but  of  such  as,  being  clearly  and  unambiguously 
taught  in  holy  writ,  are,  nevertheless,  disrelished  or  denied 
by  worldly-minded  men  ;  who  contend,  contrary  to  the  evi- 
dent declaration  of  Scripture,  that  riches  are  more  helpful 
than  hurtful  to  salvation ;  and  of  such  Chrysostom  says, 
that  they  ought  to  be  disregarded,  and  all  these  things  be 
estimated  by  the  rule  of  Scripture. 

But  if  the  Chaplain  insist,  that  the  direction  here  given, 
is  general  to  all  men,  who  are  advised  to  investigate  all 
matters  of  faith  in  the  Scripture,  without  paying  any  re- 
gard to  "  what  this  or  that  man  asserts  for  truth  ;"  I  answer 
first,  that  this  direction  is  very  different  from  that  of  Chry- 
sostom above  cited,  in  his  commentary  on  the  2d  to  the 
Thessalonians ;   and   of  the   learned   Vincent  of  Lerins, 

h2 


90 

whom  the  Chaplain  quotes  with  singular  complacency.* 
This  venerable  writer  having  observed,  that  all  religious 
innovators  accumulate  texts  upon  texts  to  give  credit  to 
their  different  systems,  inquires,  what  Catholics,  what  the 
children  of  the  Church  must  do  ?  How  can  they  in  Scrip- 
ture discern  truth  from  falsehood  ?  "  They  will  take  care," 
he  continues,  *'so  to  proceed — as  to  interpret  holy  writ 
agreeably  to  the  traditions  of  the  universal  Church,  and  the 
rules  of  Catholic  doctrine."! 

In  the  next  place,  1  observe,  that  the  rule  of  investiga- 
tion laid  down  as  from  St.  Chrysostom,  is  insufficient  and 
inapplicable.  Insufficient,  because  by  Scripture  alone  it  is 
impossible  to  determine  many  points  necessary  to  be  be- 
lieved and  practised,  and  so  received  even  by  Protestants 
themselves.^ 

The  rule  is  moreover  inapplicable  to  much  the  greatest 
part  of  mankind  ;  and  I  am  really  ashamed  to  enter  serious- 
ly on  the  proof  of  it,  since  it  must  be  evident  to  every  con- 
siderate man  in  the  world.  For,  if  Scripture,  as  interpreted 
by  private  judgment,  is  the  only  rule  which  all  are  to  fol- 
low, neglecting  what  this  or  that  man  asserts  for  truth  ;  if 
all  are  to  investigate  all  disputed  things  in  the  Scriptures, 
it  plainly  follows,  that  the  laborious  husbandman,  the  illi- 
terate mechanic,  the  poor  ignorant  slave,  are  to  acquire  the 
knowledge  in  languages,  and  the  critical  discernment  neces- 
sary to  compare  translation  with  translation,  text  with  text. 


*  In  this  author,  tlie  Chaplain  may  find  the  clearest  condemnation  of  his 
new  religious  principles.  I  refer  him  to  the  35,  36,  37, 38,  and  39  chapters, 
which  I  wish  I  could  translate  without  swelling  this  address  to  too  great  a 
hulk. 

t  Quid  facient  Catholic!  homines,  &  matris  ecclesiae  filii  ?  quonam  modo  in 
scripturis  Sanctis  veritatem  a  falsitate  discernent  ?  Hoc  scilicet  facere  cura- 
hunt,  quod  in  principio  commonitorii  istius  sanctos  viros  nobis  tradidisse 
sjcripsimus  ;  ut  divinum  canonem  secundum  universalis  ecclesiae  iraditiones, 
<k  juxta  Catholici  dogmatis  regidas  interpretentur.  Vi-nc.  Lir.  Cam.  c.  38. 

t  See  p.  87  of  this  Address,  and  Mumford's  Question  of  Questions,  point 
first  and  second. 


91 

For  without  this  comparison  and  many  other  precautions, 
they  never  can  form  a  reasonable  judgment  of  the  sense  of 
Scripture  ;  nor  can  they  be  sure  of  that  book  being  Scrip- 
ture, which  is  put  into  their  hands  as  such.  If  to  relate 
this  prodigious  opinion  be  not  enough  to  refute  it,  all  aro-u- 
ment,  even  demonstration  itself,  will  be  of  no  avail. 

The  Chaplain  seems  to  be  aware  of  its  glaring  absurdity  ; 
and  therefore,  in  a  note,  he  says,  that  they  who  are  unquali- 
fied to  enter  upon  such  inquiries  as  he  made,  "  must  rely 
principally  upon  the  authority  of  their  teachers;"  and  he 
quotes  the  bishop  of  Chester  as  recommending  the  same. 
Thus  then,  after  citing  with  so  much  complacency  a  pre- 
tended passage  of  St.  Chrysostom  ;  after  bidding  defiance 
to  our  divines  to  explain  away  the  saint's  doctrine,  requir- 
ing "  all  of  us  to  neglect  what  this  or  that  man,''  even  him- 
self or  the  bishop  of  Chester,  "  asserts  for  truth ;"  but  to 
"  investigate  all  things  in  the  Scriptures ;"  after  this,  I  will 
not  say,  that  he  himself  "  unravels  the  difficulty  with  fine- 
spun subtlety,  like  a  modern  schoolman  ;"  but  like  an 
Alexander,  he  cuts  the  knot  at  once,  and  refers  us  to  the 
authority  of  our  teachers. 

While  the  Chaplain's  letter  is  before  me,  I  feel  other  impres- 
sions too  strongly  upon  my  mind  to  indulge  in  the  satisfac- 
tion, which  it  might  otherwise  suggest,  to  observe,  that 
after  decrying  "  the  dead  weight  of  authority  ;''  after  exalting 
"  private  judgment,"  as  the  sole  interpreter  of  Scripture,  he 
is  obliged  to  confess  that  the  generality  of  mankind,  must 
be  guided  in  religious  matters,  "  principally  by  the  autho- 
rity of  their  teachers ;"  for  he  will  hardly  deny,  that  the 
generality  of  mankind  are  neither  "  by  education,  nor  abi- 
lities, nor  leisure,  qualified  to  enter  upon  the  inquiries" 
necessary  to  judge  for  themselves.  Did  Jesus  Christ  then 
leave  a  "  rule  of  faith"  so  inadequate,  as  not  to  be  capable 
of  application  to  much  the  largest  portion  of  mankind  ? 
Do  the  Protestant  Churches  in  general  know  no  other 
rule  than  one  so  miserably  defective  1  and  if  defective  now, 


92 

what  must  it  have  been  before  the  discovery  of  the  art  of 
printing-,  when  the  knowledge  of  letters  was  so  rare,  com- 
paratively with  the  present  times;  and  it  was  morally  im- 
possible, to  multiply  manuscripts  sufficient  to  supply  every 
individual  with  the  means,  even  if  he  had  the  ability,  to 
study  Scripture  1 

But  who  are  the  teachers,  to  whose  authority  the  genera- 
lity of  mankind  are  referred  ?  Are  they  any,  however  in- 
troduced to  the  exercise  of  that  public  function  ?  This  in- 
deed may  be  a  doctrine  well  enough  suited  to  latitudina- 
rians  in  religion,  or  the  scoffers  at  all  religion  ;  but  surely 
not  very  agreeable  to  the  principles  of  a  Christian.  Must 
the  teachers  then,  whose  authority  is  to  be  so  respected,  be 
the  regular  and  authorized  ministry  of  the  country  ?  What 
if  that  country  should  be  Turkey,  and  the  ministers  the 
deluded  disciples  of  Mahomet?  What  if  it  should  be  a 
country  blessed,  like  this,  with  unlimited  toleration,  and 
giving  equal  countenance  to  tlie  professors  and  teachers  of 
every  denomination  of  Christians  ?  In  this  case,  the  unlet- 
tered, that  is,  the  far  greater  part  of  the  community,  are 
directed  indeed  by  the  Chaplain  and  the  bishop  of  Chester 
to  follow  their  teachers  ;  but  by  what  criterion  they  are  to 
choose  their  teachers,  does  not  appear.  If  by  their  doc- 
trine, if  by  Scripture,  all  the  labour  recoils  back  again  upon 
the  uninformed  multitude,  without  education,  abilities,  or 
leisure  to  go  through  with  it.  On  one  hand,  they  are  con- 
strained to  adopt  Seneca's  rule  ;*  and  on  the  other,  they 
cannot  possibly  comply  with  it ;  they  would  fain  follow  the 
instructions  of  a  faithful  teacher ;  but  how  to  distinguish 
him  from  a  seduced  or  seducing  one,  they  know  not.  I 
disdain  taking  notice  of  the  insinuations  so  scandalously 
false,  thrown  out  by  the  bishop  of  Chester,  as  if  we  dis- 
countenanced free  inquiry.  From  what  was  said  in  the 
beginning  of  this  address,  you  may  judge  how  undeserved 

*  Omnia  delibera  cum  amico ;  sed  prios  delibera  de  amico. 


93 

they  are.  His  lordship  is  pleased  to  add,  that  "  whatever 
things  are  necessary  to  be  believed,  are  easy  to  be  under- 
stood." Are  not  all  doctrines  laid  down  in  Scripture,  and 
particularly  those  contained  in  the  Apostles'  creed,  neces- 
sary to  be  believed  ?  So  at  least  the  Chaplain  teaches.  In 
these  is  delivered  the  tenet  of  three  divine  persons,  that  of 
the  incarnation  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  of  his  descent  into 
hell.  Are  these  things  easy  to  be  understood  ?  However 
they  may  appear  to  the  bishop,  they  have  been  generally 
accounted  mysteries  incomprehensible  to  human  under- 
standing. 

We  likewise  direct  all  to  rely,  in  matters  of  faith,  on 
their  teachers,  while  they  exercise  their  functions  uncon- 
tradicted and  unreproved  by  the  body  of  pastors,  or  their 
superiors  in  the  hierarchy.  But  then  their  mission  is  es- 
tablished on  a  fact  of  public  notoriety,  the  investigation  of 
which  requires  no  laborious  discussion.  They  can  trace 
an  uninterrupted  succession  of  their  ministry  to  the  Apos- 
tles, and  consequently  to  Christ  himself.  As  Christ  sent 
his  Apostles  to  "  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  and  teaching 
them  to  observe  all  things  whichsoever  he  had  command- 
ed ;''  so  did  they  send  other  pastors,  to  discharge  the  same 
functions  as  themselves.  They  could  not  preach  at  all 
times,  and  in  all  places ;  they  therefore  appointed  disciples 
to  found  other  Churches,  as  they  themselves  had  founded, 
and  to  exercise  therein  the  same  ministry.  The  pastors 
thus  associated  to  the  Apostles,  successively  admitted 
others;  and  this  apostolical  body,  that  is,  the  body  of  the 
envoys  of  Jesus  Christ,  has  never  ceased.  When  new 
members  are  incorporated  into  it,  they  receive  from  him 
the  same  commission  of  teaching  and  administering  the 
sacraments;  the  Church  of  Christ  cannot  exist,  without 
the  preaching  of  the  Gospel ;  and  preaching,  according  to 
St.  Paul,  is  not  to  be  exercised  without  a  mission ;  "  how 
will  they  preach  if  they  be  not  sent?"  (Rom.  x.  15,)  so 


94 

that  the  Church  and  this  apostolical  body  must  always  sub- 
sist together,  and  can  never  be  separated. 

From  these  truths,  founded  on  a  plain  matter  of  fact,  an 
argument  is  deduced  equally  clear  and  convincing.  It  is 
as  certain,  that  the  Apostles  appointed  other  pastors  to  suc- 
ceed them,  as  it  is,  that  they  founded  Churches.  The  ac- 
tual pastors,  then,  of  these  Churches,  descending  in  a  law- 
ful and  unbroken  line  of  succession  from  them,  are  cer- 
tainly sent  by  the  Apostles,  and  by  Christ  himself,  since 
those  Churches  have  always  subsisted,  and  still  subsist. 
Thus  our  faith  is  as  assured  and  well  grounded,  in  believ- 
ing the  public  doctrines  delivered  by  these  teachers,  as  it 
could  have  been,  in  receiving  the  preaching  of  the  Apos- 
tles themselves. 

No  books,  no  erudition  is  here  necessary.  The  illiterate, 
as  well  as  learned  Christian  can  easily  be  certified  of  the 
fact  on  which  the  reasoning  is  founded.  The  prerogative 
of  tracing  to  the  apostles  an  ordinary  and  regular  succes- 
sion of  pastors,  is  so  peculiar  a  prerogative  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  that  no  other  society  can  dispute  it  with  her,  or 
appropriate  it  to  themselves.*  To  this  succession  the  pri- 
mitive fathers  constantly  appeal,  as  demonstrative  evidence 
of  the  true  Church,  and  challenge  sectaries  to  exhibit  a 
like  title  to  the  divine  commission  of  teaching  and  admi- 
nistering the  sacraments.f 

After  having  thus  shown,  both  from  the  nature  of  the 
thing,  and  the  Chaplain's  own  acknowledgment,  that  Scrip- 
ture alone  is  not  a  general  and  sufficient  rule  of  faith,  I 
might  well  contend,  that  transubstantiation,  purgatory,  au- 
ricular confession,  and  the  poiver  of  absolving,  are  to  be 
received  as  Christian  doctrines,  on  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  though  no  mention  were  made  of  them  in  Scrip- 

*  See  Bergier,  Deisme  Refute,  &c.  let.  4. 

t  See  IrencEus  contr.  Haer.  1.  3.  c.  3.  Tertui  1.  de  praescr.  c.  32.  Opt. 
Milev  1.  2.  cont.  Farm.  August,  in  ps.  contra  par.  Donati,  &  lib.  contra  ep. 
Fund.  cap.  4. 


95 

lure.  But  for  your  entire  satisfaction,  I  will  now  consider 
particularly  all  that  has  been  advanced  on  the  other  side 
respecting  these  articles  of  our  faith. 

To  begin  with  transubstantiation,  the  Chaplain  asserts, 
that  "  the  doctrine  conveyed  by  that  word  was  no  article  of 
faith  prior  to  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215;"  and  for 
proof  of  it  he  refers  to  Scotus,  as  cited  by  Bellarmine,  I.  3. 
de  Euch,  c,  23.  When  I  read  this  passage  of  the  Chap- 
lain's letter,  I  thought  it  remarkable  in  him  to  allege  Sco- 
tus' testimony  to  prove  a  point  of  ecclesiastical  history ; 
the  subtleties  of  the  school  were  much  better  suited  to  that 
author's  speculative  genius,  than  a  critical  examination  of 
historical  facts.  And  it  was  becoming  the  Chaplain's  can- 
dour to  have  acknowledged  it,  when  he  saw  evident  proofs 
of  Scotus'  inaccuracy  in  the  place  cited  out  of  Bellarmine  ; 
who  observes,  that  Scotus  could  never  have  seen  the  de- 
crees of  the  councils  held  at  Rome  against  Berengarius,  the 
first  in  the  year  1060,  and  the  second  1079,  in  which  the 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  asserted ;  and  Berensra- 
rius,  who  had  impugned  it,  retracted  his  error.* 

The  Chaplain  continues,  that  towards  the  beginning  of 
the  9th  century,  "  Paschasius  Radbertus  published  his 
treatise  upon  the  corporal  presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eu- 
charist ;  and,  as  Bellarmine  tells  us,  was  the  first  who  wrote 
seriously  and  copiously  concerning  it."  For  this,  he  cites 
Bellarmine  de  Scriptorihus  Ecclesiasticis.  Does  not  every 
person  who  reads  this  passage,  understand  it  to  import,  that, 
according  to  Bellarmine,  Paschasius  Radbertus  was  the  first 
who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  concerning  the  corporeal 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist?  Now  let  us  hear  Bel- 
larmine himself;  and  then  let  every  one  judge,  whether  the 
Chaplain  has  carried  into  his  researches  after  truth,  all  that 
impartiality  and  painful  investigation,  mentioned  in  his 
seventh  page.     Thus  then  Bellarmine,  in  the  book  cited  by 

*  See  Berengarius'  Retractations,  and  his  Profession  of  Faith,  in  Bellar- 
mine, 1.  3.  de  Euch.  c,  21. 


96 

him  :  "  This  author  (Paschasius  Radbertus)  was  the  first 
who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  of  the  reality  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eucharist,  against  Ber- 
tram the  priest,  who  was  one  of  the  first  that  called  it  in 
question^*  Is  it  the  same  thing  to  be  the  first  to  write 
fully  on  the  real  presence,  and  the  first  to  write  fully  on 
that  subject  against  Bertram,  who  impugned  it?  Does  not 
the  former  sense,  suggested  by  the  Chaplain,  imply  that 
Paschasius  was  the  first  to  establish  a  new  doctrine  ?  and, 
is  not  Bellarmine's  real  meaning,  that  Paschasius  was  the 
first  to  defend  an  established  doctrine  against  a  recent  op- 
poser  of  it  ? 

But  let  us  proceed  ;  and  we  shall  find  Paschasius  him- 
self clearly  showing,  that  his  view  and  design  was,  not  to 
set  forth  a  new  doctrine,  but  to  expound  that  which  was 
common  in  the  Church  ;  though  the  Chaplain  says  other- 
wise. "  This  monk,"  says  he,  "  meaning  Paschasius,  "  in- 
forms us  himself,  that  his  doctrine  was  by  no  means  uni- 
versal or  settled."  Let  us  now  see  how  he  gives  us  this 
information  ;  and  let  his  letter  to  Frudegardus  (for  to  that 
the  Chaplain  refers)  determine  the  point.  In  this  very 
letter,  then,  he  says,  that  "  thouo^h  some,  through  ignor- 
ance, err  in  this  point,  yet  not  one  openly  contradicts,  what 
the  whole  world  believes  and  professes. "f  Here  you  will 
observe,  that  Paschasius  says,  that  not  one  was  found  openly 
to  contradict  his  doctrine  on  the  Eucharist;  and  that  it  was 
believed  and  professed  by  the  whole  icorld.  Is  this  to  in- 
form us,  that  his  doctrine  was  by  no  means  universal  or  set- 
tled ?     But  let  us  hear  him  farther.     "  If  any  man,"  says 


*  Hie  auctor  primus  fuit,  qui  scrio  &  copiose  scripsit  de  veritate  corporis 
«&  sanguinis  Domini  in  Eucharistia  contra  Berlramum  presbyterum,  qiii  fuit 
cxprimis,  qui  earn  in  dubiumrevocarunt.  Bell,  de  Scrip.  Eccl.  ad.  an.  820,  de 
Paschasio  Radberto. 

tQuamvisex  hoc.  quidam  de  ignorantia  errent,  nemo  famen  est  adhuc  in 
aperto,  qui  lioc  ita  esse  contradicat,  quod  totus  orbis  credit  &  confitetur- 
Pasch.  liadb.  epis.  ad  Frudeg.  Bibl.  P.  P.  torn.  9  par.  1.  pag.  246. 


97 

he,  in  the  same  place,   "should  oppose  this  truth,  rather 
than  believe  it,  let  him  take  care  what  he  is  doing  against 
the  Lord  himself,  and  the  whole  Church  of  Christ.     For  it 
is  a  horrible  crime  to  join  in  prayer  with  all,  and  not  to  be- 
lieve what  truth  itself  attests,  and  what  every  where^  all 
universally  confess  to  be  true."*     From  these  passages,  it 
is  evident,  that  the  Chaplain  could  not  make  a  more  unfor- 
tunate reference,  to  prove  what  he  intended,  than   to  Pas- 
chasius'  letter  to  Frudegard.     But,  continues  he,  Pascha- 
sius,  in  this  very  letter,  speaking  of  the  corporal  presence^ 
says,  you  question  me  upon  a  subject  about  which  many  are 
doubtful.     Does    Paschasius    indeed    say   so?     It    would 
strangely  contradict  what  he  has  already  told  us.     Let  us 
therefore  return  to  the  letter,  and   hear  him  himself.     It 
appears  from  its   contents,   that  Frudegard  was  a  young 
monk,  who  had  read  in  one  of  St.  Augustin's  works  a  pas- 
sage that  perplexed   him ;  and  that  he  applied  to   Pascha- 
sius, as  his  master,  to  explain  the  difficulty .t     I  will  ven- 
ture to  assert,  that  the  passage  in  the  note  is  all  the  Chap- 
lain's foundation  for  saying,  as  if  they  were   the  words  of 
Paschas  us  himself,  that  many   were  doubtful  of  the  real 
presence  in  the  Eucharist.     Is  it  possible,  that  Paschasius 
should  acknowledge  this  in  the  very  letter,  wherein  he  in- 
forms hiL-^  scholar,  that  the  whole  Church  professes  the  doc- 
trine he  deliversl     That   not  even  one  person  was  found 
openly  to  contradict  it?     The  young  man  himself  acknow- 
ledge?,   that  he  had  always  believed   the   real  presence, 
which  shows,  that  it  was  at  that  time  the  common  doctrine 
of  the  Church,  in  which  young  persons  were  educated  ;  he 

*  Videat,  qui  contra  hoc  venire  voluerit,  quid  agat  contra  ipsum  Dominum ; 
&  contra  omnem  Christi  ecclesiam.  Nefarium  ergo  scelus  est  orarc  cum  om- 
nibus, &  non  credere ;  quod  Veritas  ipsa  testatur,  &  ubique  omnes  universa- 
lites  verara  esse  fatcntwr.Ibid. 

t  Dicis  te  antea  credidisse;  sed  profiteris,  quod  in  libro  de  doctrina  Chris, 
tiana  Beati  Auguslini  legisti, quod  typica  sit  locutio :  quod  si  fignrata  locutio  est, 
est  schema  potius,  quam  Veritas ;  nescio,  inquis,  qualiter  illud  suraere  de. 
beam.     Ep-  adJ^rude.   ibid. 

I 


98 

informs  Paschasius,  that  a  perplexity  had  arisen  in  his 
mind,  not  from  hearing  any  public  instruction  of  the  pas- 
tors of  the  Church,  contrary  to  the  real  presence,  but  from 
some  expressions  of  St.  Augustin.  He  applies  to  Pascha- 
sius to  explain  the  difficulty,  relying  on  his  knowledge  and 
orthodoxy  ;  he  does  not  conclude  from  the  passage  of  Au- 
gustin,  that  it  inclined  him  to  change  his  faith,  but  ex- 
presses an  uncertainty  as  to  its  meaning.  I  know  not  how 
lam  to  understand  it.  How  then  will  the  Chaplain  make 
o-ood  his  assertion,  that  Paschasius,  in  his  letter  to  Frude- 
gard,  acknowledges,  that  many  doubted  of  the  corporal  pre- 
sence of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  1 

He  next  alleges  Rabanus  Maurus,  as  one  who,  "  about 
the  year  847,  wrote  expressly  against  the  novelty  of  this 
doctrine,  in  a  letter  to  Heribaldus,  bishop  of  Auxeri'e."  I 
apprehend  that  here  again,  the  Chaplain  has  followed  an 
unfaithful  guide ;  whom  I  suspect  to  be  the  French  Hu- 
guenot Aubertin,  or  Albertinus.  For  the  Chaplain  cites 
his  work  on  the  Eucharist,  as  one  of  those  which  operated 
in  him  a  conviction  of  his  former  errors;  and  I  observe  a 
great  affinity  between  the  mistal:es  already  noticed  in^he 
Chaplain's  citations,  and  those  which  were  detected  in  Au- 
bertin, by  the  diuWiox  oi  La  perpetuite  de  la  foi.  Now, 
though  I  will  not  say  positively,  that  Rabanus  has  no  such 
words  in  his  letter  to  Heribaldus,  (for  I  really  neither  have, 
nor  can  any  where  hear  of  its  being  to  be  found  in  Ameri- 
ca,) yet  it  may,  I  think,  be  inferred  from  Fleury's  Eccle- 
siastical History,  that  Rabanus  did  not  write  his  letter  to 
Heribaldus  expressly  against  the  novelty  of  Paschasius* 
doctrine,  as  the  Chaplain  says;  and  I  much  question,  whe- 
ther he  so  much  as  mentions  it  in  that  letter.  For,  accord- 
ing to  Fleury,  Hist.  Eccles.  book  49,  an.  859,  the  express 
purpose  of  Rabanus'  writing  to  Heribaldus,  was,  to  an, 
swer  him  on  many  penitential  cases,  concerning  wh  ch  the 
latter  had  consulted  him,  Rabanus  being  then  archbishop 
of  Mentz. 


99 

But  as  I  wish  to  inform  your  faith  at  the  same  time  that 
I  am  endeavouring  to  confirm  it,  I  will  add  from  Fleury, 
that  there  is  extant  an  anonymous  writing  against  Pascha- 
sius,  which  is  thought,  with  much  probability,  to  be  a  letter 
fiom  Rabanus  to  Egil,  abbot  of  Prum  ;  and  it  is  not  un- 
likely, that  the  passage  quoted  by  the  Chaplain  is  taken 
from  this  writing. 

But  what  is  the  purport  of  the  letter  ?  Is  it  to  dispute 
the  real  presence,  and  transubstantiation  ?  No,  certainly  ; 
for  the  author  of  it  clearly  professes  these  doctrines,  and 
begins  his  letter  with  these  words  :  "  All  the  faithful  must 
believe  and  confess,  that  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord 
is  true  flesh  and  true  blood  ;  whoever  denies  it,  shows  him- 
self an  infidel."  And  a  little  after:  "  I  add,  that  as  Jesus 
*  Christ  is  the  true  Lamb  of  God,  who  is  mystically  offered 
every  day  for  the  life  of  the  world  ;  so,  by  consecration 
and  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bread  becomes  his 
true  flesh,  and  the  wine  his  true  blood,  which  is  so  certain, 
that  no  Christian  must  doubt  it." 

The  purport  then  of  this  writing  against  Paschasius, 
was,  to  censure  some  modes  of  speech  used  by  him  in  ex- 
plaining the  Eucharist.  For,  he  had  said,  that  the  body  of 
our  Lord,  which  the  faithful  receive  in  communion,  is  the 
same  body  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  This  expres- 
sion appeared  to  Rabanus  particularly  obnoxious,  though 
it  was  undoubtedly  authorized  by  former  usage.  It  was 
therefore  rejected  by  him,  and  thought  improper,  as  not 
conveying  an  idea  of  the  different  manner  in  which  Christ's 
body  and  blood  exist  in  their  natural  state,  and  that  which 
they  have  in  the  sacrament.  In  the  former,  they  are  pal- 
pable  and  sensible  ;  in  tlie  latter,  they  exist  in  a  manner 
supernatural  and  mysterious. 

Paschasius  maintained  the  propriety  of  his  language  in 
treating  on  this  subject,  in  which  dispute  many  others  took 
part.  Ratramus,  or  Bertram,  wrote,  by  order  of  Charles 
the  Bald,  a  treatise  on  the  body  and  blood  of  our  Lord; 


100 

but  that  he  was  employed  expressly  by  that  prince  to  oppose 
Paschasius,  is  a  fact  no  where  proved,  though  confidently 
asserted  by  the  Chaplain.  The  French  author  of  the  Per- 
petuity of  the  Faith,  &;c.  says  expressly,  that  Ratramus 
does  not  so  much  as  mention  Paschasius'  name  ;  he  ob- 
jects, indeed,  to  the  expression  used  by  him,  but,  at  the 
same  time,  he  plainly  asserts  in  many  passages  the  Catholic 
doctrine;  andBoileau,  the  celebrated  Sorbonist,  has  proved, 
that  Bellarmine  and  others,  were  mistaken  in  thinking  he 
was  an  adversary  to  it ;  as  well  as  in  saying,  that  Pascha- 
sius wrote  against  him  his  treatise  of  the  reality  ^f  Cirisfs 
body  and  blood,  &;c.  For  the  occasion  of  Paschasius* 
writing  was,  to  instruct  the  Saxons,  then  lately  converted 
to  Christianity. 

I  will  not  swell  this  address  with  copying  from  Ratramus 
many  passages  to  prove  his  belief  of  the  real  presence  and 
transubstantiation.  Amongst  others,  this  is  one.  *'  The 
bread  which  is  offered,  is,  at  consecration,  changed  into  the 
body  of  Christ ;  as  likewise  the  wine,  expressed  from  the 
grape,  is  made  blood  by  the  significancy,"  or  efficacy  "  of 
the  sacred  mystery  ;  not  indeed  visibly,  but  by  the  invisi- 
ble operation  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  Whence  they  are  called 
the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  because  they  are  received 
not  for  that  which  they  outwardly  appear,  but  for  that  which 
they  are  made  by  the  intimate  action  of  the  divine  Spirit ; 
and  because  they  are  quite  another  thing  through  invisible 
power,  than  what  they  visibly  appear."*  This,  I  think,  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  show,  that  the  disagreement  be- 
tween  Paschasius  and  Ratramus,  consisted  not  in  a  dif- 
ference of  opinion  respecting  the  real  presence  and  tran-' 
substantiation. 

"  We  see,"  continues  the  Chaplain,  "  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  carnal  presence  was  no  sooner  openly  maintained, 
than  some  of  the  most  celebrated  doctors  of  the  time  arose 

*  Ratram,  ap.  auct.  Perp.de  lafoU 


101 

to  combat  it,  without  incurring  any  suspicion  of  heresy 
from  their  opponents.''  We  have,  I  think,  seen  directly 
the  contrary.  We  have  heard  Rabanus  say,  that,  hy  conse- 
cration, and  the  potver  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  bread  becomes 
the  truefiesh,  and  the  wine  the  true  blood,  of  Christ,  which 
is  so  CERTAIN,  that  NO  Christian  must  doubt  it.  And,  in- 
deed, it  would  be  a  most  extraordinary  thing,  that  Rabanus 
should  write  expressly  against  the  doctrine  of  the  real  pre- 
sence ;  and  yet,  that  Baronius,  an  historian  so  fervently 
attached  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Catholic  Church,  should 
style  him  the  brightest  luminary  of  Germany. 

We  have  heard  Ratramus,  in  the  last  paragraph  but  one, 
deliver  no  less  clearly  the  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  and 
transubstantiation  ;  and  if  even  they  assert  it  so  evidently, 
whom  the  Chaplain  has  selected  out  of  all  antiquity,  as 
most  favourable  to  his  cause,  I  need  not  have  recourse  to 
other  authors,  their  cotemporaries,  to  prove,  that  a  suspicion 
of  heresy  would  have  been  incurred  by  those,  who  should 
have  openly  combated  the  above  said  tenets. 

Finally,  we  have  heard  Paschasius  represent  the  doctrine 
of  the  real  presence,  as  that  of  the  universal  Church,  and 
publicly  affirm  that  it  had  not  so  much  as  one  open  adver- 
sary. Where  then  is  the  convincing  proof,  that,  at  the  pe- 
riod indicated  by  the  Chaplain,  the  doctrine  of  the  carnal 
presence  was  regarded  merely  as  matter  of  opinion,  and  so 
continued  for  200  years  ?  I  flatter  myself,  on  the  contrary, 
that  I  have  alleged  from  Paschasius  and  Rabanus  convinc- 
ing  proof s  of  the  doctrine  of  the  carnal  presence  being  at 
that  time  the  established  sense  of  the  Church  ;  and  other 
proofs  more  decisive  will  be  added  hereafter. 

The  Chaplain  says,  that  the  term  transubstantiation  was 
unknown  till  an  obscure  bishop  invented  it,  eleven  hundred 
years  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles.  The  bishop  here  meant 
is  Stephen  of  Autun,  who  lived  about  the  year  950,  that  is 
850,  not  1100  years  after  the  time  of  the  Apostles,  St.  John 
having  lived  to  the  year  101  of  the  Christian  era,  according 

I  2 


102 

to  the  common  opinion.  I  mention  this,  not  for  the  sake 
of  any  advantage  I  mean  to  take  of  the  Chaplain's  mistake, 
but  merely  to  show,  that  he  did  not  bestow  on  his  investi- 
gation, all  that  scrupulous  attention,  with  which  he  flatters 
himself.  However,  Stephen  was  the  first  to  make  use  of 
the  term  transubstantiation.  I  admit  without  hesitation", 
that  it  is  not  to  be  met  with  in  any  more  ancient  author ; 
but  as  our  dispute  is  not  about  words,  but  things,  the 
Chaplain  can  derive  no  more  advantage  from  this  fact,  than 
an  Arian,  or  Nestorian  can  from  the  terms  consubstantialy 
or  S-gsToW,  being  never  used  before  the  first  council  of 
Nice,  and  that  of  Ephesus.  The  term  transubstantiation, 
was  found  to  convey  a  precise  idea  of  Catholic  doctrine, 
and  so  became  adopted  by  the  council  of  Lateran  into  ec- 
clesiastical language  ;  all  which  is  perfectly  agreeable  to 
ancient  practice,  as  attested  by  Vincent  of  Lerins :  "  The 
Catholic  Church,"  says  he,  "  moved  thereunto  by  the  inno- 
vations of  heretics,  has  always  attended  to  this  point  in  the 
decrees  of  her  councils ;  that  is,  to  transmit  to  posterity, 
with  the  attestation  of  written  authority,  what  she  before 
received  by  tradition  alone ;  comprehending  much  matter 
in  (ew  words  ;  and  for  the  better  understanding,  oftentimes 
expressing  an  ancient  doctrine,  by  a  new  word  of  determi- 
nate signification."* 

You  have  already  seen  how  much  the  Chaplain  was  mis- 
taken in  saying,  that  the  doctrine  conveyed  by  the  word 
transubstantiation^  was  no  article  of  faith  before  the  year 
1215.  But  considering  that  his  assertions  coincide  with 
the  prevailing  prejudices  in  this  country,  I  find  myself 
obliged  to  sacrifice  my  desire  of  shortening  this  address,  to 
the  necessity  of  fully  manifesting  an  error  adopted  from 
Aubertin,  or  Dr.  Cosin's  History  of  Transubstantiation; 
for  I  cannot  persuade  myself,  that  he  gave  so  much  credit  to 
Scotus,  as  to  take  it  up  on  his  authority. 

*  Vine.  Lir.  Coram,  c.  38. 


103 

In  a  council  held  at  Rouen  in  Normandy,  on  occasion  of 
Berengarius'  heresy,  an.  1063,  the  fathers  of  the  council 
thus  express  their  belief:  "  With  our  hearts  we  believe, 
and  with  our  tongues  we  confess,  that  the  bread  on  the 
Lord's  table  is  only  bread  before  consecration  ;  but  that  the 
nature  and  substance  of  bread  is,  at  the  very  time  of  con- 
secration, by  the  unspeakable  power  of  God,  changed  into 
the  nature  and  substance  of  that  Jlesh  which  icas  horn  of  the 
Virgin  Mary — and  that  the  wine,  which  is  mixed  with 
water  in  the  cup,  is  truly  and  essentially  changed  into  the 
blood  which  mercifully  flowed,  for  the  world's  redemption, 
from  the  side  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  when  wounded  by  the 
soldier's  lance."* 

In  the  Roman  council,  an.  1079,  Berengarius  retracted 
his  error,  and  professed  the  Catholic  faith  in  these  words : 
"  I,  Berengarius,  with  my  heart  believe,  and  with  my  tongue 
profess,  that  the  bread  and  wine,  which  are  placed  on  the 
altar,  are,  by  the  mystical  prayer  and  words  of  our  Re- 
deemer, substantially  changed  into  the  true,  proper,  and 
life-giving  flesh  and  blood  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."-\ 

Six  years  after  Berengarius'  death,  viz.  1094,  a  numerous 
council  was  held  at  Placentia,  of  many  bishops  of  Italy, 
France,  Germany,  &c.,  wherein  it  was  again  defined,  "  that 
bread  and  wine,  when  consecrated  on  the  altar,  are  not  only 
figuratively ,  huttruly  and  essentially  changed  into  the  body  and 
blood  of  our  Lord.^^X  E'ght  or  nine  other  councils  were  held 
during  the  same  century,  mostly  in  Italy  and  France,  and 
all  of  them  equally  condemn  Berengarius'  opinion  ;  so  true 
it  is,  that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  universally- 
received  as  an  article  of  faith,  long  before  the  year  1215. 

When  Berengarius  first  published  his  erroneous  opinion 
of  the  real  presence,  and  transubstantiation,  between  the 
years  1038  and  1050 ;  it  was  instantly  rejected  universally, 

*  See  the  decrees  of  this  council,  published  by  the  learned  Mabillon. 
t  Ap.  Bell.  lib.  3.de  Euch.  c.  21.  t  Labbe,  C  C.tom.  10.  apud.  auct.  True 
Ch.  of  Christ. 


104 

andconcluded  to  be  repugnant  to  faith.  Adelmanus,  whohad 
been  brought  up  with  him  under  the  discipline  of  Fuibert,  bi- 
shop of  Chartres,  and  became  himself  bishop  of  Brixen,  wrote 
Berengarius  a  letter,  expressed  with  much  tenderness  and 
charity,  wherein  he  tells  his  friend,  that  a  "  report  was 
spread  of  his  being  severed  from  the  unity  of  the  Church, 
by  holding  a  doctrine  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith,  con- 
cerning the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  which  is  immolated 
every  day  on  the  altar."  See  the  passage  at  length  in  the 
Perpetuite  de  la  foi,  1st  section.  This  letter  was  written 
before  any  council  had  been  held  against  Berengarius ;  and 
yet  Adelmanus  tells  him,  that  his  doctrine  was  deemed  to 
be  contrary  to  Catholic  faith  and  unity ;  a  manifest  proof 
of  the  real  presence  and  transubstantiation,  being  regarded 
as  tenets  of  the  Church  antecedently  to  Berengarius'  error. 
Lanfrank,  who  afterwards  became  archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, was  present  at  the  council  held  at  Rome  against  Be- 
rengarius, an.  1059,  and  wrote  a  treatise  on  the  reality  of 
the  body  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist.  In  the  very  beginning 
of  it  he  says,  that  Berengarius  first  "  began  to  entertain 
an  opinion  against  the  whole  world;"  and  afterwards,  that 
he  "  composed  a  writing  against  the  Catholic  verity,  and 
against  the  sentiment  of  all  the  Churches."*  And  in  his 
18th  chapter,  he  thus  states  the  Catholic  doctrine:  "We 
believe,  that  the  earthly  substances  of  bread  and  wine,  being 
consecrated  on  the  altar  by  divine  institution,  and  the  mi- 
nistry of  priests,  are  changed,  by  the  unspeakable,  incompre- 
hensible, and  miraculous  operation  of  Almighty  power,  into 
the  substance  of  our  Lord's  body.  This  is  the  faith  which 
the  Church,  that  being  spread  through  the  world  is  called 
Catholic,  has  held  in  all  ages,  and  continues  still  to  hold."t 
The  same  thing  is  repeated  in  many  other  places  of  his 

*  Contra  orbem  sentire  caepisti— contra  Catholicam  veritatem ;  &  contra 
omnium  ecclesiarum  opinionem  scriptum  postea  condidisti.  Lanfr.  c  1- 
apud.  auct.    Ferp.  de  la  foi.      t  Ibid. 


105 

work ;  in  his  22d  chapter,  he  calls  upon  Berengarius  to 
"  question  the  Latins,  to  interrogate  the  Greeks,  the  Arme- 
nians, and  generally  all  the  Christians  of  every  country,  and 
they  will  all  with  one  voice  profess  this  faith."* 

Guitmundus,  archhishop  of  Aversa,  another  cotemporary 
author,  and  who  'was  prohably  present  at  the  council  of 
Rome,  an.  1059,  reproaches  the  followers  of  Berengarius 
with  holding  a  doctrine  "  that  was  not  received  so  much  as 
in  one  borough,  or  even  one  village. "f 

In  fine,  Berengarius  himself  was  so  much  convinced  of 
the  universal  belief  being  contrary  to  his  new  tenet,  that 
he  pretended,  according  to  Lanfrank,  "  that  the  Church 
had  perished  through  the  ignorance  of  those  who  under- 
stood not  her  mysteries,  and  that  she  subsisted  only  in  him- 
self and  his  followers. "J 

With  this,  and  much  more  similar  evidence  before  me  of 
the  sense  of  the  Church  concerning  transubstantiation,  at 
the  rise  of  Berengarius' heresy,  about  the  year  1038,  I  may 
without  rashness  conclude,  that  the  Chaplain  was  equally 
mistaken  in  saying  that  it  only  became  an  article  of  our 
faith  in  the  year  1215;  and  in  asserting,  as  we  have  be- 
fore seen,  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  caimal  presence  in 
the  Eucharist  was  regarded  as  matter  of  opinion  till  the 
council  of  Rome,  under  pope  Nicholas,  in  the  year  1059 
or  1060. 

The  testimonies  I  have  alleged  are  so  full  and  decisive, 
that  the  most  learned  Protestant  writers  have  admitted,  re- 
luctantly, indeed,  but  still  they  have  admitted,  that  the 
Catholic  doctrine  had  full  possession  of  men's  minds,  when 
Berengarius  first  began  to  dogmatize.  They  assign  its  ori- 
gin, increase,  and  full  establishment  to  the  period  between 
the  publication  of  Paschasius'  writings,  and  the  era  of  Be- 
rengarius above  mentioned.     This  period  they  represent  as 


*  Ibid,    t  Nequc  enim  eis  ulla  civitatula,  vel  etiam  una  villula  concessit. 
Ibid.    Ubid. 


106 

the  reign  of  darkness  and  absurdity.     The  Chaplain,  with- 
out adopting-  iheir  common  opinion  of  the  early  prevalence 
of  our  tenets,  has  however  caught  the  infection,  and  with 
wonderful  sensibility  laments  the  woful  degradation  of  rea- 
son, and  the  superstition  and  ignorance  of  the  age.     Ac- 
cording to  most  of  these  authors,  it  was  during  this  la- 
mentable state  of  religion,  virtue,  and  learning,  that  our 
doctrine  crept  into  men's  minds;  that  it  operated  a  total 
change  in  their  faith;  that  parents,  who  had  heard  another 
lesson  all  their  life-time,  trained  their  offspring  to  the  be- 
lief of  the  real  presence,  and  transubstantiation ;  that  the 
pastors  of  the  Churches  did  the  same  with  their  parishioners; 
that  the  faithful,  instead  of  believing,  as  before,  that  they 
received  Christ  in  the  Eucharist  figuratively,  or  spiritually, 
now  changed  their  ceed,  and  admitted  the  tenet  of  the  real 
presence  so  universally,  that  Berengarius  could  not,  in  the 
whole  world,  find  so  much  as  one  pitiful  town  or  a  single 
village,  to  give  countenance  to  his  doctrine.     What  com- 
pletes the  wonder,  is,  that  all  this  happened  without  any 
commotion  or  opposition.     No  council  was  called  to  with- 
stand the  growing  evil ;  not  one  bishop  throughout  Chris- 
tendom raised  his  voice  against  it.     At  all  other  times,  the 
least  innovation,  the  slightest  departure  from  the  received 
tenets,  occasioned  disputes  and   contests;    every  heresy, 
however  obscure  or  speculative,  was  combated  at  its  first 
appearance;  but  this  doctrine  of  the  real  presence,  which 
involved  in  its  nature  a  point  of  daily  practice,  as  well  as 
of  faith  ;  which  proposed  to  Christians,  as  an  object  of  in- 
ward and  outward  adoration,  that  which  in  their  former  es- 
timation it  was  idolatrous  to  adore  ;  this  doctrine  gently 
insinuated  itself  without  noise  or  disturbance  into  the  minds 
of  all  Christians,  during  that  long  sleep  into  which  ignor- 
ance had   lulled  them ;  it  operated  this  wonderful  revolu- 
tion so  silently,  that  no  historian   either  perceived  it  in 
himself  or  others,  to  transmit  us  an  account  of  it.     Can  men, 


107 

who  will  believe  this,  find  any  mystery  in  religion,  even 
transubstantiation  itself,  too  hard  for  their  digestion? 

But  we  are  not  yet  come  to  all  the  wonders  of  this  most 
extraordinary  phenomenon.  The  doctrine  now  held  by  the 
Catholic  Church  was,  at  the  rise  of  Berengarius'  error, 
and  so  continues  to  this  day,  the  doctrine  of  all  the  eastern 
and  southern  Christian  Churches,  the  Greek,  the  Arme- 
nian, the  Cophtic,  the  Abyssinian,  &;c.  ;  so  truly  did  Lan- 
frank,  as  above  cited,  refer  to  them  as  witnesses  of  the 
universal  belief.  Many  of  those  Christians,  as  the  Nes- 
torians,  Eutychians,  &c.  were  separated  from  the  Church 
of  Rome  near  four  hundred  years  before  Paschasius  wrote 
on  the  Eucharist.  Within  a  (ew  years  after  his  writing  his 
letter  to  Frudegardus,  the  Greek  schism  was  in  a  great 
degree  begun  by  Photius,  and  rent  asunder  the  eastern  and 
western  Churches,  and  bred  between  them,  especially  in 
the  former,  an  animosity  which  they  will  with  dijfficulty 
conceive,  who  are  unacquainted  with  the  ardent  spirits  of 
the  Greeks.  It  is  therefore  incredible,  I  had  almost  said 
impossible,  considering  the  nature  of  the  human  mind,  that 
in  this  state  of  resentment,  the  oriental  Churches  should 
not  only  adopt  the  innovations  of  the  Latins,  but  adopt 
them  without  reproach  or  opposition,  of  which  not  the 
slightest  testimony  is  come  down  to  us;  and  that  these  pre- 
tended innovations  should  be  received  and  incorporated 
into  their  religion  not  only  by  the  abettors  of  Photius' 
schism,  but  likewise  by  the  Nestorians,  Eutychians,  &;c. 
who  had  been  so  long  separated  from  the  communion  both 
of  the  Roman  pontiff,  and  the  patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople. • 

Obstinacy,  or  ignorance,  alone  can  deny,  that  our  doc- 
trine concerning  the  Eucharist  agrees  with  that  of  all  the 
Churches  1  have  mentioned.  No  point  of  history  can  be 
supported  with  fuller  evidence  than  this  now  is,  that  the 
real  presence  and  transubstantiation  are  the  invariable 
tenets  of  the  eastern  Christians  ;  and  no  other  commence- 


108 

went  of  this  general  persuasion  can  be  assigned,  with  the 
smallest  show  of  probability,  than  the  commencement  of 
the  Christian  religion  itself. 

From  all  that  has  been  said,  our  inference  is  clear  and 
conclusive.  The  doctrine  of  the  real  presence  and  tran- 
substantiation,  were  the  established  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  and  not  merely  matters  of  opinion,  long  before 
the  eras  assigned  by  the  Chaplain,  that  is,  before  the  years 
1060  and  1215.  They  were  universally  taught  previously 
to  the  Greek  schism,  which  may  be  said  to  have  begun  an. 
857,  by  Photius'  intrusion  into  the  see  of  Constantinople, 
and  even  before  the  Nestorian  and  Eutychian  heresies,  the 
latter  of  which  was  condemned  in  the  council  of  Chalce- 
don,  an.  454  ;  and  the  former  in  that  of  Ephesus,  an.  434. 
But  if  they  were  the  general  doctrines  throughout  the 
western  and  eastern  Churches  at  so  early  a  period,  what 
foundation  can  there  be  for  assigning  their  commencement 
to  any  other  era,  than  that  of  Christianity  itself? 

It  imports,  then,  little  to  the  present  subject,  whether  in 
the  interval  between  Paschasius  and  Berengarius,  a  gloom 
of  dark  and  universal  ignorance  overspread  the  face  of  the 
Christian  world  ;  and  whether  the  bishops  were  unable  to 
write  their  names;  for  enough  has  been  said,  though  much 
more  remains  unsaid,  to  prove  to  every  dispassionate  man, 
that  the  obnoxious  tenets  did  not  steal  upon  men's  minds 
during  this  fatal  interval.  If  it  were  at  all  material  to  re- 
fute the  exaggerated  imputations  of  supineness  and  ignor- 
ance, it  would  be  no  difficult  matter,  for  the  period  so  out- 
rageously abused  was  not  so  fatal  to  the  cultivation  of  let- 
ters as  is  represented  ;  and  if,  through  the  tyranny  of  tur- 
bulent barons,  and  violence  of  contending  factions,  some 
few  prelates  incapable  of  writing  their  names,  perhaps  not 
six  in  all  Christendou),  were  imposed  upon  difierent 
Churches,  there  were  many  others,  pious  and  well  inform- 
ed, who  kept  constant  watch  over  the  flocks  committed  to 
their  charjre.     Whoever  will  read  the  acts  of  the  council  of 


109 

Rheims,  held  within  this  period,  viz.  an.  992,  will  be  sa* 
tisfied  that  the  bishops,  who  composed  it,  were  perfectly  ac* 
quainted  with  ecclesiastical  discipline  and  sacred  antiqui- 
ty ;  and  animated  with  a  becoming  zeal  for  the  preserva- 
tion of  sound  morals  among  the  clergy.     Baronius  and  Si- 
gonius  had  their  eyes  principally  turned  on  Italy,  their  own 
country,  and  especially  on  Rome,  when  they  wrote  so  un- 
favourably of  the  age  ;  and  there  indeed  contending  fac- 
tions imposed  some  pontiffs  on  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  who 
disgraced  their  station  by  the  corruption  of  their  manners. 
But  France,  England,  and  Germany,  and  even  some  parts 
of  Italy,  were  blessed  with  bishops  of  extraordinary  virtue 
and    knowledge,  and  with  princes,  who  encouraged  learn- 
ing, and  endowed  academies  of  science,  in  which,  if  the 
true  taste   of  literature  did  not  yet   flourish,   at  least    the 
study  of  religion,  and  zeal  for  improvement,  did  ;  as  is  at- 
tested of  the  schools    erected   at  Paris,  Arras,  Cambrai, 
Liege,  &;c.* 

The  Chaplain  cites  some  Catholic  divines,  who  acknow- 
ledge that  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  is  not  to  be 
found  in  Scripture.     It  has  been  already  observed,  that  no- 
thing conclusive  can  be  inferred  from  this,  even  supposing 
these  divines  in  the  right,  and  that  they  are  fairly  cited. 
But  what  if  their  meaning  be   only  this,  that  in  Scripture 
there  is  no  express  declaration  of  the  bread  and  wine  being 
changed  into  the  body   and  blood  of  Christ?     Might  they 
not  say  this,  and  still  believe  that  the  doctrine  of  the  real 
presence  was  so  expressed  in  holy  writ,  as  necessarily  to 
infer  the  change,  which  we  call  transubstantiation  1     For  I 
will  venture  to  say,  though  I  have  never  looked  into  some 
of  these  divines,  that  there  is  not  one  of  them  who  does 
not  teach  that  the  words.  This  is  my  body,  import  Christ's 
real,  corporeal,  and  substantial  presence  in  the  Eucharist. 
Accordingly,  Scotus   says  only,  that  there  is   no  text  of 

*  Histoire  Litteraire  de  Fr.  t.  6. 
K 


no 

Scripture  so  explicit,  as  evidently  to  compel  our  assent  to 
transubstantiation.* 

Melchior  Canons  elegant  work  I  have  heretofore  read 
with  great  pleasure  ;  and  1  wish  that  the  Chaplain  had 
transcribed  the  whole  passage  referred  to,  that  we  might 
fairly  judge  of  his  meaning ;  for  I  own,  that  I  grievously 
suspect  Cano  of  saying,  that  transubstantiation  is  certainly 
implied,  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  Scripture  doctrine, 
if  not  expressly  delivered  in  it ;  and  that  the  words  of  the 
institution  of  the  sacrament  of  the  Eucharist  would  not  be 
true,  if  they  did  not  import  a  change  of  the  bread  and  wine 
into  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ. 

Alphonsus  de  Castro  is  very  orthodox,  and  has  the  cha- 
racter of  being  a  divine  of  some  credit;  but  as  to  his  being 
a  mighty  name  in  scholastic  theology,  I  never  before  heard 
it ;  and  I  am  sure,  no  divine  can  be  entitled  to  that  charac- 
ter, who  gravely  says,  that  in  "  old  authors  there  is  seldom 
any  mention  made  of  the  transubstantiation  of  the  bread 
into  the  body  of  Christ ;"  for  so  the  Chaplain  cites  him. 
How  little  conversant  with  old  authors  he  must  be,  who 
gravely  advances  such  a  proposition,  will  plainly  appear 
from  Bellarmine,  Du  Perron,  Tournely,  &;c.  I  shall  pre- 
sently have  occasion  to  recite  some  passages  from  old  au- 
thors ;  but  shall  do  it  with  a  sparing  hand,  not  forgetting 
that  the  purport  of  this  address  is  not  to  establish,  but  to 
vindicate  our  doctrine  from  the  attack  made  against  it. 

After  exhausting  his  authorities  against  transubstantia- 
tion, the  Chaplain  begs  leave  to  mention  "  two  negative 
arguments,  which  seem  to  prove  to  a  demonstration,  that  it 
was  unknow^n  to  the  ancient  Church."  How  capable  this 
is  of  demonstration,  you  may  judge  from  what  you  have 
already  heard.  Was  it  unknown  to  the  ancient  Church, 
when  Cyril,  bishop  of  Jerusalem,  wrote  thus  about  the  year 


*  Ut  evidenter  cogat  transubstantiationem  admittere.  Scot,  apua  Bell.  1.  3. 
de  £uch.  c.  23. 


Ill 

350  1  "  Jesus  Christ,  in  Cana  of  Galilee,  by  his  will  only, 
changed  water  into  wine,  which  has  some  affinity  with 
blood ;  and  can  we  not  believe  him,  that  he  changes  the 
wine  into  his  own  blood  ?  Let  your  soul  rejoice  at  it,  as  a 
thing  most  certain,  that  the  bread,  which  appears  to  our 
eyes,  is  not  bread,  though  our  taste  do  judge  it  to  be  so,  but 
that  it  is  the  body  of  Christ ;  and  that  the  wine,  which  ap- 
pears to  our  eyes,  is  not  wine,  though  our  sense  of  taste  take 
it  for  wine,  but  that  it  is  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ."* 

Was  transubstantiation  unknown,  when,  in  the  same 
century,  Gaudentius,  bishop  of  Brescia,  thus  expressed  him- 
self: "The  Creator,  and  Lord  of  beings,  who  produces 
bread  from  the  earth, yrom  bread  makes  his  own  body,  be- 
cause he  can  do  it,  and  has  promised  it;  and  he,  that  out 
of  water  made  wine,  out  of  tcine  makes  his  own  blood.^^\ 
It  is,  I  hope,  needless  to  add  to  these,  the  testimonies  of 
almost  every  Christian  father ;  and  I  think  the  Chaplain 
might  contend,  with  equal  appearance  of  truth,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  baptism  was  unknown  to  the 
ancient  Church,  as  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eu- 
charist was. 

We  are  now  prepared  to  examine  his  negative  arguments. 
The  first  is,  that  if  the  ancient  Church  formerly  adored 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  as  we  now  do.  Catholics  w^ould,  in 
arguing  against  Arians,  have  insisted  on  that  adoration  as 
a  proof  of  Christ's  divinity.  Such  is  his  first  demonstra- 
tion ;  but  does  it  not  equally  prove,  that  the  ancient  Church 
never  adored  Christ  at  all,  in  or  out  of  the  Eucharist  ?  For 
pray,  would  it  not  be  equally  conclusive  against  Arians, 
and  in  favour  of  Christ's  divinity,  to  have  alleged  the  an- 
cient custom  of  adoring  him  out  of  the  sacrament,  for  in- 
stance, as  he  is  seated  in  heaven  on  the  right  hand  of  his 
Father  1  Why  therefore  was  this  argument  not  insisted  on 
by  the  ancient  fathers  ?  For  a  very  obvious  reason  ;  because 

*  CyriL  Hier.  Catech.  Myst  4.        t  Gauden.  Brix.  Serm.  % 


112 

the  Arians,  at  the  very  time  that  they  fell  into  heresy  to 
avoid  the  pretended  contradictions  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
Trinity,  swallowed  other  real  ones  j  and,  as  ecclesiastical 
historians  observe,  made  no  difficulty  to  acknowledge  that 
Christ  was  a  divine  person,  true  God  of  true  God*  eternal, 
the  same  God  with  the  Father,  and  possessing  the  same  di- 
vine pre-eminence  or  dignity  /f  and  therefore  an  object  of 
divine  worship.  In  a  word,  they  seemingly  admitted  every 
thing  but  the  term  consubstantial.  Adoration  they  did  not 
refuse :  and  the  Catholics,  instead  of  having  cause  to  re- 
proach them  with  neglecting  it,  charged  them,  on  the  con- 
trary, with  introducing  a  plurality  of  God^jby  paying  divine 
honours  to  him,  to  whom,  consistently  wdth  their  princi- 
ples, they  could  not  be  due. if 

Before  I  proceed  to  the  Chaplain's  second  argument, 
amounting  likewise  to  demonstration,  I  must  beg  leave  to 
detain  your  attention  a  little  while  longeron  the  first.  This 
is  his  reasoning:  the  Catholics,  in  their  dispute  with  the 
Arians,  did  not  object  against  the  latter,  the  supreme  ado- 
ration paid  to  Christ  in  the  blessed  Eucharist ;  therefore  no 
such  adoration  was  paid  him  ;  but  that  adoration  would  not 
have  been  withheld,  if  the  Catholics  had  indeed  believed 
Christ's  real  presence  in  the  Eucharist;  therefore,  since  it 
was  withheld,  they  did  not  believe  in  it.  You  have  already 
heard  a  very  satisfactory  reason,  why  Catholics  did  not  ob- 
ject against  the  Arians,  as  the  Chaplain  thinks  they  would  ; 
to  that  then  I  shall  say  no  more ;  but  begging  leave,  for 
once,  to  quit  my  defensive  plan,  I  shall  build  one  argument 
in  favour  of  our  doctrine  upon  the  foundation  laid  by  the 
Chaplain.  According  to  him,  adoration  of  Christ  in  the 
Eucharist,  imports  a  belief  of  his  real  presence  ;  but  primi- 
tive Christians  adored  Christ  in  the  Eucharist ;  they  there- 
fore believed  his  real  presence.    The  second,  or  minor  pro- 

*  Socrates'  Hist.  Eccl.  I.  2  c.  20.      t  Ibid.  c.  19.  prope  fiHem.      |  Soc  Hist. 
Eccl.  1. 1.  c.  23,  edit.  Val. 


lis 

position,  which  is  the  only  disputable  one,  can  be  proved 
by  the  clearest  evidence  of  primitive  Christians  them- 
selves. I  shall  omit  relating  passages  to  this  point  out  of 
Ambrose,  the  holy  bishop  of  Milan,*  Chrysostom,"f  Gre- 
gory Nazianzen,  &;c.,  that  I  may  come  immediately  to  an 
authority  still  more  authentic,  the  public  liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  Constantinople,  which  commonly  goes  under 
the  name  of  Chrysostom,  and  was  probably  composed,  and 
certainly  used  by  him.  In  this  liturgy,  not  only  the  exter- 
nal acts  of  adoration,  expressed  by  incense,  bending  and 
prostrating  the  body,  &;c.  are  enjoined,  but  likewise  inter- 
nal adoration  is  clearly  signified  by  the  prayers  addressed 
to  Jesus  Christ  in  the  sacrament.  "  Lord  Jesus,"  is  the 
priest  enjoined  to  say,  "  look  down  from  thy  holy  habita- 
tion, and  from  the  throne  of  thy  glory,  come  to  sanctify  us, 
thou  who  art  seated  in  Heaven  with  thy  Father,  and  who 
art  here  present  with  us  in  an  invisible  manner.  Deign 
with  thy  powerful  hand  to  grant  us  thy  pure  and  unsullied 
body  ;  and  through  us  to  all  the  people."  Then  adds  the 
liturgy,  "the  priest  and  the  deacon  must  make  their  ado- 
ration." And  to  show,  that  this  adoration  refers  to  the 
body  of  Christ  upon  the  altar,  we  need  only  note  the  far- 
ther directions  of  the  liturgy.  The  priest  taking  up  the 
consecrated  bread,  and  bending  his  head  before  the  altar, 
prays  in  this  manner  :  "  I  confess,  that  thou  art  Christ,  the 
son  of  the  living  God,  who  came  into  the  world  to  save 
sinners,  dec.  Lord,  I  am  not  worthy  that  thou  shouldst 
enter  into  my  house  defiled  with  sin ;  but  as  thou  didst 
vouchsafe  to  enter  the  house  of  Simon  the  Leper,  so  like- 
wise vouchsafe  to  enter  my  soul,  full  of  ungovernable  pas- 
sions, as  a  manger,  or  a  house  of  filth  and  death,  covered 
all  over  with  the  leprosy  of  sin."  Thus  is  proved  the  ado- 
ration of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  not  only  by  the  testi- 
mony  of  the  fathers,  but  by  a  law  of  ecclesiastical  discip- 

*  De  Spir.  san.  lib.  3.  12.      t  Chrys.  horn.  60.  ad.  Fop.  AnftocA.— and,  de 
Sacerd.  lib.  6, 

k2 


114 

line,  connected  with  daily  and  inviolable  practice  ;  and 
making  part  of  the  worship  rendered  to  Jesus  Christ  agree- 
ably to  the  public  liturgy ;  and  consequently,  the  primitive 
belief  of  the  real  presence  is  fully  established. 

The  Chaplain's  second   negative  argument,  or  demon- 
stration against  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist  is, 
"  that   heathen  writers  would   have  retorted  upon  Chris- 
tians,  the  accusation  of  idolatry  in  adoring  a  bit  of  bread, 
in  reserving  their  God  in  gold   and  silver  chalices,"  &c. 
Violent,  indeed,  must  be  his  prejudices  against  the  religion 
he  has  renounced,  if  such  arguments  appear  demonstra- 
tions to  him.     For  how   little  do  we   know  of  the  disputa- 
tions between  Christians  and  heathens  ?      Some  fragments 
of  Celsus  and  Porphyry,  and  of  the  writings  of  Julian  the 
apostate,  together  with  the  little  that  can  be  collected  from 
the  early  apologies  for  Christianity,  are  almost  all,  that  is 
come  down  to  us  on  this  subject.     The  heathens  may  have 
objected,  as  the  Chaplain  supposes  they  would ;  so  may 
they  have  found,  in  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Son  of  God,  in  his  nativity,  in   his  crucifixion,  an  appa- 
rent apology  for  their  fables  concerning  their  own  divini- 
ties.    They  may  have  grounded  on  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  redemption,  the  same  arguments  as  the  Socinians  now 
do  ,•  and  they  may,  from  the  example  afforded  them,  have 
attempted  to  justify  their  own  human  sacrifices.     Above 
all,  they  may  have  availed  themselves  of  the  tenet  of  the 
Trinity,  to  uphold,  or,  at  least,  explain  away,  the  absurdi- 
ties of  a  plurality  of  Gods.     But,  have  we    any  authority 
for  saying  they  did  so?     No;  and  except  a  single  expres- 
sion of  the  scoffer  Lucian,   which  seems  to  glance   at  the 
Trinity  ;  and  a  passage  of  Tertullian  and  Athanasius,  im- 
plying, that  some  Jews  and  Pagans  reproached  Christians 
with  admitting  more   Gods  than  one ;  antiquity  does  not 
furnish  us  with  any  proof  of  these  arguments  being  used 
by  heathen  writers.  What  wonder  then,  if  they  never  made 
the  objection  proposed  by  the  Chaplain,  especially,  as  of 


115 

all  the  mysteries  of  our  religion,  the  celebration  of  the 
Eucharist  was  that,  in  which,  during  the  reign  of  per- 
secution and  idolatry,  the  greatest  privacy  was  observed. 

The  truth  is,  the  heathens  despised  the  Christians  too 
much  to  inform  themselves  minutely  of  their  tenets.  They 
knew  little  of  them,  but  what  appeared  outwardly  ;  their 
aversion  for  idolatry,  and  their  profession  of  following  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus  Christ.  Here  their  inquiries  stopped  ; 
and  Tertullian,  in  his  Apology,  ch.  1,  upbraids  them  with 
neglecting  in  this  point  alone  to  seek  information. 

To  these  negative  arguments,  the  Chaplain  begs  leave 
to  add,  "  that  the  fathers  of  the  2d  council  of  Nice  ex- 
pressly  confirm  the  opinion,  that  Christ's  body  in  heaven 
is  not  flesh  and  blood ;  how  therefore  can  bread  and  wine 
be  changed  into  his  body,  if  they  become  flesh  and  blood?" 
For  this  most  extraordinary  passage,  he  quotes  Labbe's 
Collection  of  the  Councils,  torn.  0,  p.  541.  This  collection! 
know  not  where  to  find  in  America ;  but  I  aver,  that  no 
such  doctrine  was  delivered  or  entertained  by  the  fathers 
of  that  council;  and  will  therefore,  without  fear  of  being 
convicted  of  rashness,  undertake  to  say,  that  the  Chap- 
lain  cannot  support  what  he  has  here  advanced.  Neither 
Cabassutius,  in  his  summary  of  the  councils,  nor  Fleury, 
nor  Natalis  Alexander,  who  recite  the  decrees  and  canons 
of  this  council  with  much  exactness,  say  one  syllable  of 
such  a  doctrine  being  taught  in  it.  As  in  many  other  in- 
stances, so  likewise  in  this,  the  Chaplain  has  suffered  him- 
self to  be  misled  by  authors,  whom,  I  hope,  he  will  de- 
servedly mistrust  for  the  time  to  come.  Their  unfaithful- 
ness is  eminently  conspicuous  in  the  present  instance.  In 
the  fifth  session  of  the  council,  some  passages  were  read 
of  a  fabulous  book,  entitled.  The  Travels  of  the  Apostles. 
Amongst  other  fables,  it  was  there  related,  that  John  the 
Evangelist  had  said,  that  Christ  had  no  true  body  ;  that 
when  the  Jews  thought  they  crucified  him,  he  exhibited 
only  the  appearance  of  a  body,  but  was  in  reality  without 


116 

any  corporeal  figure.  But  so  far  was  the  council  from  con- 
firming this  doctrine,  that  they  rejected  it  with  horror. 
This  is  the  account  given  by  Fleury,  Hist,  eccles  torn.  9,  b. 
44.  an.  787.  It  would  be  curious  indeed,  if  the  authors, 
whom  the  Chaplain  has  followed,  should  have  mistaken  this 
fabulous  writing  for  the  acts  of  the  council.* 

Nothing,  I  think,  now  remains  unnoticed  of  all  he  has 
said  against  our  doctrine  of  the  Eucharist,  excepting  the 
collection  of  supposed  absurdities  and  contradictions,  with 
which,  in  the  same  page,  he  charges  transubstantia- 
tion.  In  this,  he  uses  a  mode  of  reasoning  not  very  libe- 
ral, and  yet  not  unpractised  by  many  other  writers  against 
us.  The  objected  absurdities  and  contradictions,  whether 
real  or  imaginary,  result  more  immediately  from  Christ's 
real  presence  in  the  Eucharist,  than  from  transubstantia- 
tion ;  but  to  impute  them  to  that  doctrine,  would  not  be 
quite  so  inoffensive.  Some  regards  are  due  to  Protestant 
Lutheran  brethren,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  who  admit  the  real  presence  in  their  cate- 
chisms at  least,  and  according  to  their  earliest  writers.  But 
as  to  the  Catholic  tenets,  too  much  cannot  be  said  to  ren- 
der them  an  object  of  ridicule  and  detestation.  "T/'tran- 
substantiation  he  admitted,''''  says  the  Chaplain,  ^Hhe  true 
God  may  he  shut  up  in  hoxes,  or  devoured  corporally  hy 
vermin."  Would  to  God  it  were  possible,  in  answering 
such  objections,  (which  indeed  I  never  should  have  suspect- 
ed the  Chaplain  capable  of  drawing  from  the  foulest  dregs 
of  controversy,)  to  keep  up  your  respect  for  this  great  mys- 
tery of  our  religion,  and  adorable  pledge  of  divine  good- 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  have  found,  in  the  Annapolis  library,  Binius' 
Greek  and  Latin  edition  of  the  Acts  of  the  2d  council  of  Nice;  I  have  care- 
fully examined  these  Acts,  but  can  meet  with  nothing  similar  to  the  opinion 
attributed  to  the  council  by  the  Chaplain,  but  the  contrary  doctrine  repeated- 
ly established,  and  the  error  rejected  with  horror,  which  ascribed  to  Christ 
only  an  apparent  or  fantastical  body.  See  Concil.  Gener.  Vol.  V.  Act  5.  p. 
703,  4,  5,  6. 


117 

ness  towards  mankind  !  How  can  he  give  us  his  flesh  to  eat  ? 
(John  vi.)  was  the  Jewish  question ;  and  many  hearing  it, 
said,  this  saying  is  hard,  and  who  can  hear  it  ? 

So  likewise  the  Marcionites,  and  other  enemies  of  the  In- 
carnation, contended,  that  to  be  enclosed  in  a  womb,  and 
to  be  laid  in  a  manger,  was  unworthy  of  the  Divine  Majesty. 
The  Pagans  and  Jews  ridiculed  the  credulity  of  Christians 
in  believing  in  a  man  crucified  between  two  thieves ;  but 
the  Church  despised  their  mockeries,  being  taught  by  the 
great  Apostle,  that  the  mystery  of  the  cross  was  indeed  "  a 
stumbling  block  to  the  Jews,  and  to  the  Greeks  foolishness ; 
but  to  those  who  are  called — the  power  of  God,  and  the 
wisdom  of  God."*  The  divinity  of  Christ  could  not  be  in- 
jured by  his  mortal  sufferings ;  and  from  them,  great  glory 
came  to  him,  and  utility  to  mpn.  The  same  answer  we 
may  give  to  our  opponents,  when  they  compel  us  to  take 
notice  of  objections  so  unworthy  of  the  greatness  and  sanc- 
tity of  the  subject  under  consideration.  But  if  this  will 
not  satisfy  them,  I  would  beg  leave  to  ask  them,  whether 
they  do  not  believe  that  the  infant  Jesus  was  confined  in 
the  womb  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  and  wrapped  in  swaddling 
clothes?  Do  they  not  believe  that  he  was,  like  other  chil- 
dren, liable  to  be  hurt,  for  instance,  by  the  application  of 
fire,  or  the  stings  of  insects  ?  If  then  he  could  suffer  these 
things  in  his  own  natural  body,  and  be  liable  to  be  hurt  by 
them  ;  why  may  he  not  render  himself  subject,  in  appear- 
ance, to  the  same  accidents,  when  he  is  under  the  covering 
of  bread  and  wine,  and  incapable  of  being  hurt  thereby  ? 

I  have  already  taken  some  notice  of  the  objection,  so 
often  repeated,  and  so  often  refuted,  of  transubstantiation 
contradicting  our  senses  and  our  understanding.  Ought  we 
to  trust  our  senses  more  than  God  himself?  When  Joshua, 
who  took  the  angel  for  a  man,  asked  him,  "  Art  thou  for 
us,  or  for  our  adversaries,"  and  was  told,  he  was  not  a  man 

*  1  Cor.  i, 


lis 

but  "  a  captain  of  the  heavenly  host,  he  fell  on  his  face, 
and  worshipped,  and  said,  What  says  my  Lord  unto  his  ser- 
vant?" (Joshua  V.  14.)  that  is,  he  believed  him  rather  than 
his  senses;  for  to  all  his  senses  he  appeared  a  man  ;  but  re- 
velation informed  him,  that  what  he  saw  was  an  angel.  In 
like  manner,  if  God  has  revealed  to  us,  that  under  the  ap- 
pearances of  bread  and  wine,  is  contained  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ ;  are  we  not  to  believe  him  rather  than  those 
appearances?  The  evidence  for  the  revelation,  may  be  tried 
by  all  the  rules  of  criticism ;  but  when  the  mind  is  once 
convinced  of  its  existence,  it  must  then  submit,  notwith- 
standing all  seeming  contradiction,  or  opposition  of  our 
senses.  "Let  us  always  believe  God,"  says  St.  Chrysos- 
tom,  speaking  of  the  Eucharist,  "  and  not  contradict  him, 
tJiougk  that  whir.h  he  says,  sppms  to  contradict  our  thoughts 
and  our  eyes.  For  his  words  cannot  deceive  us ;  but  our 
sense  may  be  easily  deceived.  Since,  therefore,  he  says. 
This  is  my  body,  let  us  be  fully  persuaded  of  it.  How 
many  say  now,  oh  !  that  I  could  see  him  in  his  own  shape  ! 
or  his  clothes !  or  any  thing  about  him !  Believe  me,  you 
see  him ;  you  touch  him ;  you  eat  him.  You  would  be  con- 
tent to  see  his  clothes ;  and  he  lets  you  not  only  see  him, 
but  also  touch  him,  and  eat  him,  and  receive  him  within 
you."*  From  this  genuine  quotation  you  may  see  what 
St.  Chrysostom,  that  enlightened  doctor  of  antiquity,  thought 
both  of  the  argument  drawn  from  a  supposed  contradiction 
of  our  senses  and  understanding,  and  of  the  real  presence 
and  transubstantiation. 

As  the  Chaplain  has  added  to  his  reasoning  against  our 
belief  none  of  those  innumerahle  arguments  which  evince 
the  meaning  of  Christ's  words,  This  is  my  body,  to  he  figu- 
rative, I  likewise  shall  gladly  waive  the  controversy;  only 
remarking,  that  he  is  neither  terrified  by  the  anathemas  of 
Luther  against  the  defenders  of  a  figurative  sense,  whom 

*  Chrys.  hom.  82.  (al.  83.)  in  Matt. 


119 

he  calls  blasphemers,  a  damned  sect,  liars,  hread-eaters 
wine-guzzlers,*  <kc.,  nor  by  the  severity  of  Dr.  Cosin,  bishop 
of  Durham,  in  the  beginning  of  his  History  of  Transub- 
tantiation,  where,  speaking  of  the  words  of  the  institution 
of  the  sacrament,  he  says,  "  if  any  one  make  a  bare  figure 
of  them,  we  cannot  and  ought  not  either  excuse  or  suffer 
him  in  our  Churches." 

Another  of  our  tenets,  which  the  Chaplain  has  selected 
as  unsupported  by  Scripture  and  antiquity,  particularly  in 
the  Greek  Church,  is,  the  belief  of  purgatory.     But  before 
he  proceeded  to  impugn,  he  ought  to  have  stated  it ;  which 
not  having  done,  the  deficiency  shall  now  be  supplied-  All, 
therefore,  which  the  Church  requires  to  be  believed  on  this 
subject,  is  contained  in  the  decree  of  the  council  of  Trent, 
which  defines,  that  there  is  a  purgatory,  or  middle  state, 
"and  that  the  souls  therein  detained,  are  relieved  by  the 
suffrages  of  the  faithful,  especially  by  the  agreeable  sacri- 
fice of  the  altar.""!'    Concerning  the  nature  or  extent  of  their 
sufferings,  whether  by  fire  or  otherwise,  the  place  of  punish- 
ment, its  duration,  &c.  we  are  not  confined  to  any  particu- 
lar opinion.     Now,  is  it  true,  that  this  doctrine  has  no  foun- 
dation in  Scripture  and  antiquity?  The  books  of  Macca- 
bees, which  so  decidedly  establish  it,  must  not  be  admitted 
of  suflBcient  authority,  because  "  they  were  not  acknow- 
ledged for  canonical  Scriptures  by  St.  Hierom,  Rufinus, 
Epiphanius,  Athanasius,  Gregory,  and  many  other  ancient 
and  eminent  fathers."     If  it  be  a  sufficient  reason  for  re- 
jecting the  books  of  Maccabees,  that  some  early  fathers 
doubted  of  their  canonical  authority,  though  afterwards,  on 
a  full  investigation,  they  were  received  by  the  whole  Church, 
I  wish  to  know,  how  Protestants  came  generally  to  admit 
the  authority  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the  2d  of  Peter 
and  of  James,  the  Revelation  of  John  and  others ;  for  of 

*  Blasphemes  in  Deum,  damnatam  sectara,  mendaces  homines,  panivoros, 
vini-bibones.    Luth.  in  parva  Conf.    t  Cone.  Trid.  sess.  25. 


120 

all  these,  as  well  as  of  the  books  of  Maccabees,  doubts  were 
some  time  entertained,  and  the  fathers  held  different  opin- 
ions concerning  them.  But  I  expect  no  satisfactory  ac- 
count of  this  matter:  and  am  well  convinced,  that  the  pre- 
vailing reason,  which  moved  the  compilers  of  the  English 
Bible  to  reject  the  one,  and  receive  the  other,  was,  the  sup- 
port which  they  observed  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  purga- 
tory would  derive  from  the  book  of  Maccabees.*  But, 
though  it  were  destitute  of  this,  there  are  not  wanting  other 
passages  of  Scripture  to  confirm  the  same,  as  the  Chaplain 
may  iind  in  our  divines,  though  he  so  positively  says  the 
contrary,  and  particularly  in  the  Catholic  Scripturist,  with 
whom  he  ought  not  to  be  unacquainted. 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  antiquity  concerning  purgatory,  and 
particularly  of  the  Greek  Church,  we  shall  meet  with  little 
difficulty.  No  article  of  the  Christian  belief  has  stronger 
evidence  from  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers ;  they 
prove  incontestably  the  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  ; 
they  assert,  that  by  the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  in  this  life, 
comfort  and  relief  is  obtained  for  those  who  are  departed 
out  of  it ;  which  is  establishing  as  much  of  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory,  as  we  are  obliged  to  believe.  St.  Epiphanius,  a 
bishop  of  the  Eastern  Church,  ranks  Aerius  amongst  the 
founders  of  heretics,  for  teaching,  that  prayers  and  alms  are 
unavailing  to  the  dead  ;t  and  Augustin  confirms  the  same, 
adding,  that  his  heresy  was  condemned  by  the  universal 
Church,^  Greeks  therefore  as  well  as  others.    Cyril,  bishop 


*  Neither  Jerome  nor  Gregory  reject  these  books.  The  former  says,  they 
are  not  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  (formed  by  Esdras,  before  they  were  written,) 
nor  universally  received.  But  he  himself  held  them  to  be  of  divine  inspira- 
tion. Coin,  in  c.  xxiii.  Isaise— in  c  vii.  &  ix.  Eecl.— in  c.  viii.  Daniel.  And 
Gregory,  who  was  posterior  to  the  council  of  Carthage,  which  declared  their 
canonical  authority,  can  only  mean,  that  they  had  not  been  so  received  by 
all  the  Churches.  As  to  Athanasius,  if  the  Chaplain  ground  his  assertion,  as 
I  suspect,  oft  a  writing  entitled  Synopsis,  and  bearing  his  name,  that  work  is 
rejected  by  all  the  critics,  as  falsely  imputed  to  him. 

t  Epiph.  Haer.  75,  alias  76.        X  Aug.  de  Haeresibus— Haer.  53. 


1£1 

of  Jerusalem,  another  Greek  father,  expounding  the  liturgy 
in  a  catechistical  discourse,  says,  we  remember  those  who 
are  deceased,  first  the  Patriarchs,  Apostles,  and  Martyrs, 
that  God  would  receive  our  supplications  through  their 
prayers  and  intercession.  Then  we  pray  for  our  fathers 
and  bishops,  and  in  general  all  amongst  us,  who  are  de* 
parted  out  of  this  life,  believing  that  thisicill  he  the  greatest 
relief  to  their  souls,  for  tvhom  it  is  made,  whilst  the  holy 
and  tremendous  victim  lies  present."*  If  this  address 
should  chance  to  be  seen  by  any  one,  who  has  access  to  the 
works  of  this  holy  father,  I  would  entreat  him  to  read  the 
continuation  of  this  passage,  and  see  the  perfect  agreement 
of  our  doctrine  with  that  of  the  Greek  Church  in  St.  CyriPs 
time.  The  enlightened  Greek  doctor,  St.  Chrysostom,  is 
equally  decisive.  "  It  is  not  in  vain,"  says  he,  "  that  in 
the  divine  mysteries  we  remember  the  dead,  appearing  in 
their  behalf,  praying  the  Lamb,  who  takes  away  the  sins  of 

the  world,  that  comfort  may  thence  be  derived  to  them 

Let  us  pray  for  them,  who  have  slept  in  Christ ;  let  us  not 
fail  to  succour  the  departed  ;  for  the  common  expiation  of 
the  world  is  offered. "f  Here  is  surely  evidence  enouo-h 
to  prove  the  antiquity  of  our  doctrine,  and  its  entire  con- 
formity with  that  of  the  Greek  Church.  I  quote  no  Latin 
fathers,  as  the  Chaplain  appears  to  lay  particular  stress  on 
the  Greek ;  otherwise  it  were  easy  to  produce  the  most 
unequivocal  evidence,  of  their  perfect  agreement  with  those 
just  cited.  The  objection  from  the  venerable  bishop 
Fisher,  that  to  this  very  day  purgatory  is  not  believed  by  the 
Greeks,  &c.  is  either  a  mistake  in  him,  or,  what  I  much 
more  incline  to  believe,  he  meant  only  to  say,  that  the 
Greeks  do  not  believe  in  a  purgatory  of  fire,  contrary  to  a 
common,  though  not  a  dogmatical  opinion  of  the  western 
Church. 


*  Cyril.  Hler.  Catec.  Myst.  19.  n.  9.  edit.  Bened.  alias  cat.  5.    t  Chrj-s.  in 
i.  ad  Cor.  hom.  41 — alias  51. 

L 


122 

The  Chaplain  proceeds  to  tell  us,  that  our  present  doC-* 
trine  of  the  divine  institution  and  necessity  of  confession^ 
was  not  always  a  settled  point  in  our  Church.  What  if  it 
were  not  ?  what  harm  would  ensue,  if  for  some  ages  this 
matter  remained  without  minute  investigation,  and  the 
faithful  contented  themselves  with  humble  and  penitential 
confession  of  their  sins,  not  inquiring,  whether  the  practice 
was  derived  from  divine  or  apostolical  institution?  Must 
we,  for  this  reason,  refuse  to  believe  the  Church,  when, 
upon  full  inquiry  and  examination  of  the  tradition  preserved 
in  all  the  Churches,  she  defines,  that  confession  is  an  obli- 
gation imposed  on  us  by  divine  authority  ?  This  would 
lead  us  back  again  into  the  question  of  infallibility.  But 
let  us  hear  the  Chaplain's  reasons.  "  The  learned  Alcuin," 
says  he,  *'  during  the  ninth  century,  tells  us  expressly,  that 
some  said  it  was  sufficient  to  confess  our  sins  to  God  alone." 
Were  the  persons  here  mentioned  Catholics  or  not?  Does 
it  appear,  that  their  opinion  had  any  effect  on  the  public 
practice,  so  that  it  might  alarm  the  vigilance  of  the  pastors 
of  the  Church  ?  Does  he  speak  generally  of  all  sins  ?  Does 
he  not  refer  to  situations  and  cases  of  necessity,  in  which 
confession  cannot  be  made  but  to  God  alone  ?  Till  these, 
and  several  other  things  relating  to  this  passage,  are  stated 
more  fully,  it  is  impossible  to  determine  Alcuin's  meaning. 
The  same  must  be  observed  of  the  passage  from  the  manu- 
script penitential  of  Theodore,  the  genuineness  of  which,  I 
much  doubt ;  for  I  understand  that  Wilkins,  the  collector 
and  editor  of  the  British  Councils,  long  since  Usher's  time, 
has  not  published  it ;  and  surely  he  would  not  have  omit- 
ted so  valuable  a  discovery ;  and  moreover,  because  1  find 
no  mention  of  this  passage,  in  a  comprehensive  abridgment 
of  Theodore's  Penitential,  which  now  lies  before  me.  I  do 
not  hereby  mean  to  impeach  Usher's  integrity,  or,  in  gene- 
ral, his  judgment;  but,  for  the  reasons  just  stated,  I  con- 
clude there  were  good  grounds  to  question  the  authority  of 
a  manuscript,  which  does  not  appear  to  have  had  any  of  a 


123 

similar  tenor  to  support  its  credit.  After  all,  to  what  do 
these  authorities  amount,  supposing  them  both  genuine, 
and  conveying  the  sense  intended  by  the  Chaplain?  Only 
to  this,  that  at  the  time,  the  Church  was  not  known  by 
Theodore  and  Alcuin,  to  have  made  any  authentic  declara- 
tion of  the  divine  institution  and  necessity  of  confession. 
The  practice  of  it,  we  may  fairly  conclude  to  have  been 
general,  from  this  circumstance,  if  all  other  proof  were 
wanting,  which  certainly  is  not  the  case ;  that  it  was 
doubted,  whether  forgiveness  could  be  obtained  without  it ; 
and  in  such  a  situation,  what  prudent  and  virtuous  Chris- 
tian, anxious  to  obtain  reconciliation  with  his  Maker, 
would  neglect  the  use  of  a  mean,  perhaps  necessary  to  pro- 
cure it  1 

These  observations  are  equally  applicable  to  the  autho- 
rity of  Gratian,  whether  he  was  of  the  opinion  attributed  to 
him  by  the  Chaplain  and  Maldonatus ;  or  whether  he  only 
held,  that  the  precept  of  confession  was  not  obligatory  im- 
mediately after  the  commission  of  sin,  as  I  find  his  words 
understood  by  other  divines.  A  general  remark  will  not 
be  improper  in  this  place  ;  that  our  faith  is  formed  on  the 
public  doctrine  of  the  Church,  and  not  on  the  opinions  of 
private  theologians.  It  is  indeed  requiring  too  much  of  us, 
to  account  for  all  the  singularities,  which  any  of  them  may 
have  committed  to  writing.  Does  the  Chaplain  think,  we 
cannot  produce  from  Protestant  authors  many  concessions, 
many  acknowledgments  of  the  agreement  of  our  tenets  with 
the  sense  of  antiquity,  with  the  practice  of  the  first  ages, 
with  the  universal  belief  of  early  Christians?  Does  not 
Dr.  Cosin,  in  spite  of  all  his  animosity,  acknowledge  the 
possibility  of  transubstantiation  ?  Does  he  not  confess, 
that  the  water  was  changed  into  wine  at  the  marriage  feast 
of  Cana  in  Galilee?  Do  not  the  traslators  of  Dupin's  His- 
tory, and  other  Protestants,  bear  witness  to  the  ancient 
practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  ?  Have  not  the  invocation 
oi  saints,  the  honouring  of  their  remains,  the  celibacy  of 


124 

our  clergy,  been  vindicated  by  Protestant  writers  of  emi- 
nence from  the  misrepresentations  and  objections  of  our 
opponents?  Yet,  would  the  Chaplain  think  it  worth  his 
while  to  advert  to  these  authorities,  were  they  brought 
forth  against  him  ? 

This  however  is  his  method  against  us.  When  he  comes 
to  object  to  the  power  of  loosening  and  binding,  committed 
by  Christ  to  his  Apostles  and  their  successors  in  the  minis- 
try, he  tells  us,  that  the  famous  Lombard,  the  Aristotle,  the 
Newton  of  scholastic  divines,  and  some  others,  maintained 
that  power  to  be  only  declaratory  of  forgiveness  ;  whereas, 
"  since  the  council  of  Trent,  it  is  become  an  article  of  our 
faith,  that  the  priest  has  power  to  forgive  sins." 

Peter  Lombard,  who  lived  in  the  12th  century,  was  in- 
deed a  man  of  acknowledged  and  methodical  genius,  and 
had  the  merit  of  reducing  the  scattered  opinions  of  divines, 
into  a  regular  system  or  body,  which  has  since  been  the 
groundwork  of  scholastic  theology.  But  if  the  Chaplain, 
by  calling  him  its  Newton  and  Aristotle,  mean  to  convey 
an  idea,  that  all  his  opinions  are  held  sacred,  he  is  greatly 
mistaken ;  for  many  of  them  are  controverted,  many 
universally  rejected.  The  opinion,  for  which  he  is  here 
cited,  is  very  different  from  that  which  might  be  supposed 
by  the  Chaplain's  imperfect  representation  of  it.  For  the 
natural  inference  from  his  representation  is,  that  the  sacer- 
dotal order,  not  only  do  not  exercise  a  ministerial  and  de- 
pendent jurisdiction  over  repentant  sinners,  (which  is  what 
we  teach,)  but  likewise  that  they  impart  no  absolution,  that 
they  have  no  power  of  loosening  or  binding  ;  in  a  word, 
that  no  grace  is  administered  through  the  instrumentality 
of  their  ministry,  and  consequently  that  there  is  no  such 
thing  as  the  sacrament  of  pennance.  Now,  all  this  is  ex- 
pressly contrary  to  Lombard.  He  holds  the  divine  institu- 
tion of  this  sacrament ;  he  teaches  that  the  ministry  of  ab- 
solution truly  confers  grace  ;  that  it  has  an  inward  effect 
on  the  soul ;  and  though  only  declaratory  with  regard  to 


125 

the  remission  of  the  guilt  of  sin,  is  efficaciously  and  actively 
so,  with  respect  to  the  remission  of  the  temporal  punish- 
ment annexed  to  it.  The  council  of  Trent  censured,  in- 
deed, the  doctrine  of  the  reformers  in  such  terms,  as  ap- 
pear to  the  generality  of  divines,  to  import  the  falsehood 
of  Lombard's  opinion ;  but  others  do  not  think  so  ;  and  the 
Chaplain  might  have  remained  in  the  bosom  of  our  Church, 
and  still  believed,  that  the  power  of  absolution  is  only  de- 
claratory, in  Lombard's  sense,  as  Tournely*  would  have 
informed  him. 

I  have  now  finished  my  observations  on  the  argumenta- 
tive part  of  the  Chaplain's  letter,  with  abilities  far  inferior 
indeed  ;  but,  I  trust,  with  a  superiority  of  cause,  which  has 
enabled  me  to  leave  nothing  unanswered,  that  could  carry 
trouble  into  your  minds,  or  shake  the  firmness  of  your 
faith.  Before  he  concludes  his  letter,  he  has  thought  pro- 
per to  make  a  profession  of  his  new  belief,  and  shows  a 
particular  anxiety  to  vindicate  to  himself  the  appellation 
of  a  Catholic.  I  am  not  surprised  at  his  anxiety  ;  it  is  an 
appellation  characteristic  of  the  true  Church.  "  My  name 
is  Christian,"  says  Pacianus,  "my  surname  is  Catholic. 
That  denominates  me,  this  distinguishes  me."t  And  St. 
Augustin ;  "  we  must  hold  the  Christian  religion,  and  the 
communion  of  that  Church,  which  is  Catholic  ;  and  which 
is  called  Catholic,  not  only  by  her  own  children,  but  by 
all  her  enemies,"J  But  will  the  Chaplain  now  find  this 
characteristic  in  his  new  religion,  any  more  than  the  sec- 
taries of  St.  Augustin's  times  found  it  in  their's  ?  This 
lioly  doctor  having  mentioned  various  reasons,  which  pre- 
vailed on  him  to  remain  in  the  communion  of  the  Church, 
proceeds  thus  :  "  I  am  held  in  this  Church  by  the  succes- 
sion of  priests  coming  down  even  to  the  present  episcopacy, 
from  St.  Peter,  to  whom  Christ  after  his  resurrection  com- 

*  De  Poen.  quaea.  2.  art.  2.      t  Ep.  1,  ad  Sympron.  Nov.      |  Aug.  I.  de 
Vera  Rel.  c.  7. 

l2 


126 

mitted  the  feeding  of  his  flock.  Finally,  I  ann  held  to  it 
by  the  very  name  of  Catholic,  of  which  this  Church  alone 
has,  not  without  reason,  so  kept  possession,  that,  though 
all  heretics  desire  to  be  called  Catholics  ;  yet  if  a  stranger 
ask  them,  where  Catholics  meet,  none  of  them  will  pre- 
sume to  point  out  his  own  Church,  or  his  house."* 

The  Chaplain  claims  right  to  the  title  of  Catholic,  be- 
cause he  "  believes  and  professes  every  point  of  Christian 
faith,  which  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  has  constitu- 
ted the  creed  of  all  orthodox  believers."  For  such,  we 
are  told,  is  Vincent  of  Lerins'  description  of  a  Catho- 
lic. In  the  preceding,  as  well  as  subsequent  part  of  his 
work,  Vincent  has  explained  the  characteristics  of  Catho- 
licity so  clearly,  that  it  was  impossible  for  the  Chaplain  to 
mistake  them  ;  and  it  was,  perhaps,  becoming  his  candour 
to  have  stated  that  author's  meaning,  when  he  was  alleging 
his  authority  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Worcester.  "  It 
is  necessary,"  says  he,  "  to  follow  the  universality,  anti- 
quity, and  agreement  of  the  Catholic  and  apostolical 
Church  ;  and  if  a  part  revolt  against  the  whole ;  if  innova- 
tion rise  up  against  antiquity  ;  if  the  dissent  of  one  or  a 
few  mistaken  men  disturb  the  agreement  of  all,  or  of  a 
great  majority  of  Catholics,  let  the  integrity  of  the  whole 
be  preferred  to  the  infection  of  a  part.  In  this  same  uni- 
versality, let  greater  regard  be  had  to  venerable  antiquity, 
than  profane  novelty  ;  in  antiquity  itself,"  (that  is,  with  re- 
gard to  doctrines,  for  which  antiquity  is  alleged,)  "let  the 
decrees  of  a  general  council,  if  any  exists  in  the  first  place 
be  opposed  to  the  rashness  of  a  few  ;  and  if  no  such  de- 
crees exist,  let  Catholics  follow,  what  is  next  in  authority, 
the  agreeing  opinions  of  many  and  eminent  fathers  ;  which 
things  being  faithfully,  soberly,  and  anxiously  observed,  we 
shall  easily  with  God's  help  discover  the  pernicious  er- 
rors of  rising  heretics.''t     Will  the  Chaplain's  Catholicity 

*  Aug.  cont.  epis.  Fundara.  c.  4.    t  Vine.  Lir.  Comm.  c.  38. 


127 

stand  the  test  of  these  rules  ?  Will  the  authority  of  the 
learned  Vincent  of  Lerins  justify  the  religion  which  he  has 
adopted? 

He  next  alleges,  that  the  Apostles'  creed  is  the  standard 
of  Catholicity ;  but  it  must  be  subscribed,  he  says,  in  its 
full  extent.  Does  he  mean  by  these  words,  that  every  ar- 
ticle of  the  creed  is  to  be  received,  without  addition,  in 
the  terms  in  which  it  is  written?  Or  that  it  is  to  be  re- 
ceived with  such  extension  and  explanation  as  may  com- 
prehend other  points  not  clearly  expressed,  but  only  im- 
plied therein  ?  If  this  last  be  liis  meaning,  who  shall  de- 
termine what  is  implied?  By  what  authority  shall  the 
Arian  or  Macedonian  be  bound  to  acknowledge,  that  the 
divinity  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  taught 
in  the  creed?  Will  he,  who  receives  the  creed  in  the 
Arian  or  Macedonian  sense,  be  a  Catholic  ?  If  it  be  the 
standard  of  Catholicity,  it  surely  cannot  be  enough  to  ad- 
mit its  words  ;  but  the  sense  conveyed  by  those  words  must 
be  the  object  of  Catholic  faith.  I  admit  the  creed,  will 
each  of  these  say,  which,  whoever  admits  in  its  full  extent^ 
according  to  you,  must  be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church. 
Show  me  that  I  do  not  so  admit  it ;  show  me,  that  by  re- 
quiring my  assent  to  your  explanation  and  extension  of  it, 
you  do  not  require  a  submission  to  human  authority,  and 
thereby  lay  on  us  a  yoke  heavier  than  that,  with  which  you 
reproach  the  Church  of  Rome ;  for  when  she  requires  obe- 
dience, she  does  so  in  virtue  of  her  claim  to  infallibility; 
but  you  have  no  such  pretensions.  Thus  will  the  Arian, 
Macedonian,  and  other  sectaries  argue  ;  and  I  cannot  see, 
how  the  Chaplain  will  get  over  their  objection,  consistently 
with  the  principles  laid  down  in  his  letter;  and  therefore 
the  creed,  as  subject  to  extension  and  explanation,  cannot 
be  with  him,  the  standard  of  Catholicity. 

But  if  the  Chaplain  mean,  that  the  creed  contains  the 
universal  Catholic  faith  ;  that  the  profession  of  it  alone, 
without  understanding  any  thing  more  to  be  implied,  than 


128 

is  literally  expressed,  constitutes  us  members  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church ;  then  are  they  not  heretics,  who  condemn  mar- 
riage, and  introduce  a  distinction  of  meats;  whom  never- 
theless the  Apostle  describes  as  "  giving  heed  to  the  doc- 
trine of  devils,  speaking  lies  in  hypocrisy,  and  having  their 
conscience  seared  ;"*  nor  they,  who  deny  an  eternity  of  pu- 
nishment, or  assert,  that  all  the  reprobated  spirits  in  hell 
shall  at  length  be  saved ;  for  none  of  these  things  are 
touched  on  in  the  creed.  Where  shall  we  find  in  it  these 
necessary  points,  the  profession  of  our  obligation  to  love 
God,  and  to  keep  holy  the  Lord's  day  ?  For  necessary 
those  points  certainly  are,  the  omission  or  transgression  of 
which,  is  a  damnable  sin.  Where  does  the  creed  speak  of 
the  necessity  of  baptism,  or  of  the  lawfulness  of  it,  when 
administered  by  heretics  ?  Did  not  the  Catholic  Church 
always  assert  the  first,  as  an  essential  doctrine,  and  esta- 
blish the  other  against  the  Donatists  ?  Where  finally,  to 
omit  many  other  articles,  which  not  even  the  Chaplain 
would  deny  as  belonging  to  Catholic  faith,  does  the  creed 
propose  to  our  belief,  the  receiving  of  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  as  of  Divine  revelation  ?  It  may 
therefore  be  concluded,  and,  I  think,  upon  evident  prin- 
ciples, and  in  direct  opposition  to  the  Chaplain,  that  a  per- 
son may  subscribe  the  Apostles'  creed,  even  in  its  full  ex- 
tent, without  being  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church.  I 
only  make  this  exception,  that  by  declaring  his  assent  to 
these  words,  /  believe  the  holy  Catholic  Church,  he  means 
not  to  acknowledge  her  unerring  authority  ;  for  if  he  does, 
that  acknowledgment  imports  the  belief  of  every  article, 
which  she  proposes  as  revealed  by  God.f 

*  1  Tim.  c.  4. 

t  The  Chaplain,  in  a  note,  obviates  the  meaning  here  insinuated,  and  at- 
tempts to  show  an  opposition  between  the  exposition  of  this  article  of  the 
creed,  in  the  catechism  of  the  council  of  Trent,  and  that  of  many  of  our  re- 
ligious instructors.  But  they  must  be  ignorant  instructors  indeed,  who  know 
not  that  by  believing  in  God,  we  profess  to  believe  both  that  he  is,  and  that 


129 

Another  material  objection  to  the  Chaplain's  doctrine  is, 
that  it  admits  into  the  communion  of  the  Church,  almost 
all  those  who  in  every  age  of  Christianity  have  been  deem- 
ed heretics,  and  the  corrupters  of  faith.  The  great  council 
of  Nice,  which  the  first  Protestants  pretended  to  respect 
as  replenished  with  a  truly  Catholic  spirit,  in  their  eighth 
canon,  speak  of  the  Novatians  as  being  out  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  Their  errors  consisted,  1st.  In  denying  the 
power  of  the  Church  to  forgive  sins,  particularly  that  of 
apostacy  from  faith ;  2dly.  In  requiring  the  rebaptization 
of  those  who  had  been  baptized  by  heretics;  3dly.  In 
condemning  second  marriages.  I  doubt  whether  the  Chap- 
lain will  find  any  of  these  errors  reprobated  in  the  Apos- 
tles' creed.  St.  Cyprian  expressly  teaches,*  that  the  No- 
vatians made  use  of  no  other  creed,  than  that  of  the  Catho- 
lics ;  which  undoubtedly  was  that  of  the  Apostles ;  and  yet 
they  were  deemed  heretics,  and  out  of  the  communion  of 
the  Church. 

The  Donatists,  in  like  manner,  because  they  rejected 
baptism  administered  by  heretics,  were  denied  communion 
with  the  Catholic  Church  ;  but  the  creed  they  did  not  deny. 
"  You  are  with  us,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  in  baptism,  m  the 
creed,  in  the  other  sacraments  of  God ;  but  in  the  spirit  of 
unity,  and  in  the  bond  of  peace  ;  finally,  in  the  Catholic 
Church,  you  are  not  with  us."f  I  infer  then  again,  that  it 
was  not  the  intention  of  the  Apostles  to  conclude  in  their 
creed  the  universal  Christian  Catholic  faith, 

his  word  is  infallible,  as  being  founded  in  the  divine  perfections  of  infinite 
wisdom  and  truth;  whereas,  by  believing  the  Catholic  Church,  we  make 
profession  of  acknowledging  her  existence  ;  and  that  God  communicates  to 
us,  through  her,  those  truths,  which  we  must  receive,  not  as  the  words  of 
man,  but  as  they  truly  are,  the  words  of  God.  Just  so  the  Chaplain  admits 
the  Scriptural  doctrines  delivered  by  the  Apostles  and  evangelists ;  never- 
theless, he  does  not  fail  in  making  a  sufficient  difference  between  God  and  his 
creatures  ;  but  he  knows  that  divine  omnipotence  can  render  mortal  men  in- 
fallible in  communicating  revealed  doctrines  to  others  ,•  and  which  must 
ultimately  be  believed  for  the  authority  of  God  alone. 
*  Cyp.  ep.  76.  ad  Magnum,      t  Aug.  ep.  93.  (olim  48.)  ad  Yincentium. 


130 

You  are  now  prepared  to  form  a  true  estimate  of  the 
Chaplain's  universal  belief,  as  expressed  in  the  place  we 
have  been  considering.  As  I  before  said,  almost  every 
sect,  that  ever  deformed  the  face  of  Christianity,  might  be 
taken  into  it.  Sabellians  and  Arians ;  Nestorians  and  Eu- 
tychians  ;  Socinians  and  many  Deists;  and  the  disciples  of 
that  modern  author,  (his  name  is  celebrated  in  the  literary 
world,)  who  has  lately  discovered,  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
pre-existent  nature  in  Christ,  that  is,  of  his  having  existed 
before  his  Incarnation,  is  a  corruption  of  Christianity ;  all 
these,  however  discordant  in  their  principles,  would  sub- 
scribe the  Apostles'  creed  ;  and  might  say  that  they  em- 
braced  no  new  religion,  bnt  only  discarded  some  doctrines, 
which  had  been  engrafted  upon  the  old  one.  Thus,  in  a 
short  time,  under  pretence  of  reducing  our  faith  to  the 
primitive  simplicity  of  the  creed,  every  tenet  would  be 
successively  rejected,  which  curbs  our  passions,  or  subjects 
our  understanding.  "  If  once  this  impious  licentiousness 
be  admitted,"  says  the  excellent  Vincent  of  Lerins,  "  I 
dread  to  say,  how  great  will  be  the  danger  of  destroying 
and  extirpating  religion.  For,  if  any  one  part  of  the  Ca- 
tholic doctrine  be  rejected,  another  and  another  will  share 
the  same  fate ;  and  at  length  it  will  become  a  practice,  and 
deemed  lawful  to  discard  others  ;  thus  the  tenets  of  reli- 
gion being  rejected  one  by  one,  what  will  finally  ensue, 
but  the  rejection  of  the  whole  together."* 

The  Chaplain  proceeds  to  tell  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
Worcester,  that  his  religion  is  that  of  the  Bible ;  but  that 
their  religion  is  the  doctrine  of  the  council  of  Trent;  in- 
sinuating thus  an  opposition  between  the  two.  But  do  not 
Catholics,  as  well  as  he  himself  recur  to  Scripture,  as  the 
foundation  of  their  religion?  Does  not  the  council  of 
Trent  profess  the  most  profound  veneration  for,  and  impli- 
cit belief  of  every  part  of  Scripture  ?     Does  it  not,  in  all 

*  Vine,  Lir.  Coipm.  c.  31, 


191 

its  decrees  and  definitions  of  faith,  assert  the  tenets  of  the 
Church  on  the  authority  of  Scripture?  Jf  then  both  the 
council  and  Chaplain  be  solicitous  to  form  their  faith  on 
Scripture,  which  is  most  likely  to  discover  the  true  mean- 
ing thereof?  If  the  Chaplain  deem  it  his  duty  to  rely 
most  on  his  own  private  interpretation,  the  Catholics  of 
Worcester  think  it  wiser,  and  more  consistent  with  humi- 
lity and  obedience,  to  follow  that  Church,  which  Jesus 
Christ  has  promised  to  lead  into  all  truth  ;  and  to  hear 
those  instructors,  whom  he  has  appointed  to  "  teach  all 
things  whichsoever  he  has  commanded." 

"I  rely  solely,"  says  the  Chaplain,  "  upon  the  authority 
of  God's  word;"  and  do  we  not  likewise  rely  solely  upon 
the  same  authority?  No,  insinuates  the  Chaplain;  you 
Catholics  think  it  necessary  to  recur  to  unwritten  tradition. 
And,  pray,  what  is  the  tradition  to  which  we  recur,  but  the 
word  of  God,  delivered  down  to  us  by  the  testimony  of  the 
fathers,  and  in  the  public  doctrine  of  the  Catholic  Church? 
Does  not  the  Chaplain  himself  receive  the  written  word  of 
God  from  the  same  testimony  and  tradition  ?  Why  is  it 
less  to  be  depended  on  in  witnessing  the  unwritten  word 
of  God,  than  in  delivering  down,  and  separating  the  true 
and  genuine  books  of  Scripture  from  those  which  are  false 
or  corrupted  ?  He  demands,  with  St.  Cyprian,  "whence 
we  have  our  tradition  ?"  We  answer,  from  the  Apostles, 
from  their  successors,  from  the  attestation  of  Christians, 
spread  throughout  the  world  ;  and  St.  Augustin  proves  our 
right  to  assign  this  origin  ;  because,  says  he,  "  what  the 
universal  Church  holds,  and  was  not  instituted  in  a  council, 
but  was  always  maintained,  is  most  reasonably  concluded 
to  be  derived  from  apostolical  institution.*  But.  St.  Cy. 
prian  requires,  "  that  it  be  commanded  in  the  Gospel,  or 
contained  in  the  Epistles  or  Acts  of  the  Apostles."  What 
wonder,  that  St.  Cyprian,  while  he  was  engaged,  as  he  then 

*  Aug.  de  Bapt.  contra  Donat.  1.  4.  c.  6. 


132 

was,  in  the  error  of  the  Donatists,  should  speak  their  lan^ 
guage  ;  and,  like  all  other  opposers  of*  the  authority  of  the 
Church,  should  call  for  Scripture  proofs,  which  can  never 
be  effectual,  because  they  can  always  be  explained  away 
by  human  ingenuity?  Wherefore  St.  Augustin,  in  his  5th 
book,  23d.  ch.  on  baptism,  against  the  Donatists,  particu- 
larly refutes  the  writing  now  objected  out  of  Cyprian;  and 
it  is  wonderful,  indeed,  if  the  Chaplain  did  not  discover 
this  in  the  very  place  from  which,  I  presume,  he  copied  his 
objection.  He  sometimes  cites  Vincent  of  Lerins.  Will 
he  then  allow  one,  who  still  retains  the  most  sincere  good 
will  for  him,  to  recommend  to  his  reading  the  eleventh 
chapter  of  Vincent's  excellent  work?  Will  he  notice  what 
Vincent  there  says,  of  those  who  endeavour  to  support  their 
false  opinions,  by  quotations  from  Cyprian's  works,  written 
while  he  was  engaged  in  the  defence  of  error  ? 

The  Chaplain  adds,  that  we  deem  the  Scriptures  defi- 
cient and  obscure;  but  he  asks,  "  Where  is  the  deficiency  ? 
Where  is  the  obscurity  ?"  Deficient  they  certainly  are  not, 
if  it  be  meant,  that  they  do  not  answer  the  views  and  designs 
of  divine  Providence  in  causing  them  to  be  written  ;  but  in 
this  sense  they  are  deficient,  that  they  do  not  contain  all 
necessary  points  of  belief  and  practice;  which,  I  think,  has 
been  sufficiently  proved  ;  and  is  declared  by  St.  Paul  in 
the  words  before  cited^ ;  "  Brethren,  stand  and  hold  fast 
the  traditions  you  have  been  taught,  whether  by  word  or 
our  epistle."* 

But  where  shall  we  find  the  obscurity  of  tlie  Scripture  7 
We  shall  find  it  in  almost  every  book  of  holy  w^rit ;  we 
shall  find  it,  where  St.  Peter  tells  us  it  is  to  be  found,  in 
Paul's  epistles,  "  in  which  are  some  things  hard  to  be  un- 
deistood,  and  which,  as  well  as  all  other  Scriptures,  the 
unlearned  and  unstable  wrest  to  their  own  destruction. "f 
But  St.  Chrysostom  assures  us,  that  "  Scripture  expounds 

*  2  Thess.  ii.  15.  1 2  Pet.  iii.  16. 


133 

itself,  and  does  not  suffer  the  reader  to  err."  The  Chaplain 
is  conversant  in  history,  and  undoubtedly  a  person  of  ob- 
servation. Can  he  then  seriously  believe  or  imagine  it  to 
be  Chrysostom's  meaning,  that  the  Scripture  expounds 
itself  in  all  points  to  every  reader,  so  that  he  cannot  err? 
Is  every  one  able  to  make  that  conference  and  comparison 
of  the  different  passages  of  Scripture,  which  lead  to  its  true 
interpretation?  Can  any  thing  more  be  intended  by  that 
great  doctor,  than  that  Scripture  directs  every  reader  to 
such  a  rule  of  exposition,  as  secures  him  from  error  ?  But 
is  his  private  interpretation  this  infallible  rule?  Or  is  it 
that  of  the  Church,  manifested  in  her  public  doctrine,  by 
the  ministers  of  her  appointment?  Hear  St.  Chrysostom 
himself:  "Take  the  book  in  your  hand  ;  read  a  passage 
throughout;  keep  present  to  your  mind,  what  you  under- 
stand; but  return  frequently  to  the  reading  of  tliose  things, 
which  are  obscure  and  (iifficult;  and  if  by  repeated  read- 
ing you  cannot  find  out  their  meaning,  go  to  a  teacher,  go 
to  one  wiser  than  yourself."*  To  the  authority  of  Chrysos- 
tom might  be  added,  I  believe,  that  of  every  father  of  the 
Church  ;  and  most  of  tliem  have  delivered  their  opinions  of 
the  insufficiency  and  obscurity  of  Scripture,  not  in  frag- 
ments of  a  sentence,  but  treating  professedly  and  fully  on 
this  very  subject.  To  thtso,  allow  me  to  add  an  authority, 
which,  with  many  of  our  Protestant  brethren,  will  weigh 
more  than  that  of  all  the  fathers.  Thus,  then,  Luther,  in 
his  preface  to  the  Psalms:  "It  is  a  most  audacious  pre- 
sumption in  any  one  to  say,  that  he  understands  every  part 
even  of  one  book  of  Scripture. "t  Let  the  Chaplain  recol- 
lect all  the  disputes  and  variations  even  amongst  Pro- 
testants themselves,  concerning  the  meaning  of  these  words 
spoken  by  Christ  at  his  last  supper,   This  is  my  body.     If 

*  Chrys.  hom.  3.  de  Lazaro. 

t  Scio  esse  impudentissimac  temeritatis  enm,  qui  audeat  profiteri  unum 
scripturse  libriim  a  se  in  omnibus  pariibus  intellect iim.  Lulh.  prcef.in  Peal, 
ap.  Bell,  de  R.  P.  1.  3.  c  21. 

M 


134 

innumerable  arguments  evince  to  him  their  meaning  to  he 
figurative,  he  cannot  forget,  that  Luther  and  Dr.  Cosin,  a 
bishop  of  the  Church  of  England,  pronounce  anathemas 
against  the  maintainers  of  a  figurative  sense.  After  this, 
will  he  so  confidently  repeat  his  interrogation,  "  where  is 
the  deficiency,  where  is  the  obscurity  of  Scripture  ?" 

*'  He  is  content,"  he  says,  "  to  acquiesce  in  that  autho- 
rity, to  which  alone  St.  Austin  and  St.  Chrysostom  refer  us, 
insinuating  hereby,  that  Scripture  is  that  sole  authority. 
How  he  came  to  mention  St.  Augustin  on  this  occasion,  I 
am  at  a  loss  to  conceive.  This  holy  father  has  made  a  clear 
profession  of  receiving  Scripture  itself,  only  because  it 
came  recommended  to  him  by  the  Church.  "  1  would  not," 
says  he,  "  believe  the  Gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Ca- 
tholic Church  did  not  move  me  thereunto."*  In  his  con- 
troversies with  the  Manicheans  and  Donatists,  he  repeat- 
edly appeals  to  the  authority  and  practice  of  the  Catholic 
Church ;  he  tells  the  latter,  that  neither  they,  nor  the  Ca- 
tholics, have  any  clear  Scripture  fcr  their  different  opinions 
concerning  rebaptization  ;  but  that  the  former,  by  refusing 
to  submit  to  the  Church,  resist  not  man,  but  our  Saviour 
himself,  who  in  the  Gospel  bears  testimony  to  the  Church.t 
The  pretended  authority  from  St.  Chrysostom  is  no  more 
his  than  mine;  it  is  a  reference  to  the  same  exploded  pas- 
sage, as  was  cited  in  the  Chaplain's  note,  of  which  enough 
has  been  said. 

I  have  now  gone  through  a  task  painful  in  every  point 
of  view  in  which  I  could  consider  it.  To  write  for  the 
public  eye,  on  any  occasion  whatever,  is  neither  agreeable 
to  my  feelings,  my  leisure,  nor  opportunities;  that  it  is 
likewise  disproportioned  to  my  abilities,  my  readers,  I 
doubt,  will  soon  discover.  But  if  reduced  to  the  necessity 
of  publishing.  I  would  wish  that  my  duty  led  me  to  any 

*  Ego  vero  evangclio  nou  credercm,  nisi  me  ecclesiae  Catholics  commove- 
ret  auctoritas.    Aug.  cont.  Epis.  Fuiidam.  c.  5. 
t  Aug  lib.  1.  cont.  Cresc.  c.  33— &  de  Unit.  Ecd. 


135 

species  of  composition,  rather  than  that  of  religious  contro- 
versy. Mankind  have  conceived  such  a  contempt  for  it, 
that  an  author  cannot  entertain  a  hope  of  enjoying  those 
gratifications,  which  in  treating  other  subjects  may  support 
his  spirits  and  enliven  his  imagination.  Much  less  could 
1  have  a  prospect  of  these  incitements  in  the  prosecution  of 
my  present  undertaking.  I  could  not  forget,  in  the  begin- 
ning, progress,  and  conclusion  of  it,  that  the  habits  of  think- 
ing, the  prejudices,  perhaps  even  the  passions  of  many  of 
my  readers,  would  be  set  against  all  the  arguments  I  could 
oft'er;  and  that  the  weaknesses,  the  errors,  the  absurdities 
of  the  writer,  would  be  imputed  to  the  errors  and  absurdity 
of  his  religion.  But  of  all  considerations,  the  most  painful 
was,  that  I  had  to  combat  him,  with  whom  1  had  been  con- 
nected in  an  intercourse  of  friendship  and  mutual  good 
offices ;  and  in  connexion  with  whom  I  hoped  to  have  con- 
slimrriaied  my  course  of  oiii'  common  ministry,  in  the  ser- 
vice of  virtue  and  religion.  But  when  I  found  these  ex- 
pectations disappointed  ;  when  I  found  that  he  not  only  had 
abandoned  our  faith  and  communion,  but  had  imputed  to 
us  doctrines  foreign  to  our  belief,  and  having  a  natural  ten- 
dency to  embitter  against  us  the  minds  of  our  fellow  citi- 
zens, I  felt  an  anguish  too  keen  for  description;  and  per- 
haps the  Chaplain  will  experience  a  similar  sentiment,  when 
he  comes  coolly  to  reflect  on  this  instance  of  his  conduct. 
It  did  not  become  the  friend  of  toleration  to  misinform,  and 
to  sow  in  minds  so  misinformed,  the  seeds  of  religious  ani- 
mosity. 

Under  all  these  distressful  feelings,  one  consideration 
alone  relieved  me  in  wTiting;  and  that  was,  the  hope  of 
vindicating  your  religion  to  your  own  selves  at  least,  and 
preserving  the  steadfastness  of  your  faith.  But  even  this 
prospect  should  not  have  induced  me  to  engage  in  the  con- 
troversy, if  I  could  fear  that  it  would  disturb  the  harmony 
now  subsisting  amongst  all  Christians  in  this  country,  so 
J)lessed  with  civil  and  religious  liberty ;  which,  if  we  have 


136 

the  wisdom  and  temper  to  preserve,  America  may  come  to 
exhibit  a  proof  to  the  world,  that  general  and  equal  tolera- 
tion, by  giving  a  free  circulation  to  fair  argument,  is  the 
most  effectual  method  to  bring  all  denominations  of  Chris- 
tians to  a  unity  of  faith. 

The  motives  which  led  the  Chaplain  to  the  step  he  has 
taken,  are  known  best  to  God  and  himself.  For  the  vindi- 
cation of  his  conduct,  he  appeals  to  the  dictates  of  con- 
science with  a  seriousness  and  solemnity,  which  must  add 
greatly  to  his  guilt,  if  he  be  not  sincere.  He  is  anxious 
to  impress  on  his  readers  a  firm  conviction,  that  neither 
views  of  preferment  nor  sensuality  had  any  influence  on 
his  determination.  He  appears  to  be  jealous,  that  suspi- 
cions will  arise  unfavourable  to  the  purity  of  his  intentions. 
He  shall  have  no  cause  to  impute  to  me  the  spreading  of 
these  suspicions.  But  I  must  entreat  him  with  an  earnest- 
ness suggested  by  the  most  perfect  good  will  and  zealous 
regard  for  his  welfare,  to  consider  the  sanctity  of  the  solemn 
and  deliberate  engagement,  which  at  an  age  of  perfect  ma- 
turity he  contracted  with  Almighty  God.  I  pray  him  to 
read  the  two  exhortations  of  that  enlightened  doctor  St. 
Chrysostom  to  his  friend  Theodorus,  who,  like  the  Chaplain,, 
had  renounced  his  former  state,  in  which  by  a  vow  of  celi- 
bacy he  had  consecrated  himself  to  Almighty  God.  "  You 
allege,"  says  the  saint  to  his  friend,  "  that  marriage  is  law- 
ful ;  this  I  readily  acknowledge ;  but  it  is  not  now  in  your 
power  to  embrace  that  state  ;  for  it  is  certain,  that  one,  who 
by  a  solemn  engagement  has  given  himself  to  God,  as  his 
heavenly  spouse,  if  he  violate  this  contract,  commits  adul- 
tery, though  he  should  a  thousand  times  call  it  marriage. 
Nay,  he  is  guilty  of  a  crime  so  much  the  more  enormous, 
as  the  majesty  of  God  surpasses  man.  Had  you  been  free, 
noone  could  charge  you  with  desertion  ;  but  since  you  are  con- 
tracted to  so  great  a  king,  you  are  not  at  your  own  disposal."* 

*  Chrys.  ad  Theod.  laps.  Exh.  2. 


137 

See  liere,  how  far  St.  Chrysostom  was  from  considering 
the  Jaw  of  celibacy  as  "  a  cruel  usurpation  of  the  una- 
lienable rights  of  nature,  as  unwarrantable  in  its  princi- 
ple, inadequate  in  its  object,  and  dreadful  in  its  conse- 
quences." He  considered  a  vow  of  celibacy  as  an  engage- 
ment, or  contract  entered  into  with  Almighty  God ;  inde- 
pendent  therefore  of  the  discipline  of  any  society  as  to  its 
binding  power,  and  not  to  be  released  but  by  God's  relin- 
quishing his  right  to  exact  a  rigorous  compliance  with  the 
obligation  of  it.  He  thought  that  the  sanctity  of  religion 
was  interested  in  the  performance  of  so  sacred  an  engage- 
ment, according  to  Deut.  xxiii.  21.  "When  thou  hast 
vowed  a  vow  to  the  Lord  our  God,  thou  shalt  not  be  slack 
to  pay  it,  because  our  Lord  thy  God  will  require  it. — That, 
which  is  once  gone  out  of  thy  lips,  thou  shalt  observe,  and 
shalt  do,  as  thou  hast  promised  to  our  Lord  thy  God,  and 
hast  spoken  with  thy  proper  will  and  thy  own  mouth." 


u2 


REPLY 


AN  ADDRESS  TO  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 


OF  THE 


UNITED   STATES   OF   AMERICA. 


BY  THE  AUTHOR  OF  A  LETTER  TO  THE  ROMAN  CATHOLICS 
OP  THE  CITY  OP  WORCESTER. 


[the  rev.  DR.  WHARTON.] 


NEW-YORK:   REPUBLISHED  BY  DAVID  LONGWORTH,    1817. 


PHILADELPHIA:   WILLIAM  STAVELT,   1834. 


A  REPLY,  6lc. 


It  is  with  deep  concern,  that  the  late  Worcester  Chap- 
lain finds  himself  under  the  disagreeable  necessity  of  ap- 
pearing again  before  the  tribunal  of  the  public.  He  is 
well  convinced,  that  of  "making  many  books  there  is  no 
end,"  and  has  experienced  that  "much  study  is  a  weariness 
of  the  flesh."*  But  an  attack,  of  a  complexion  which  he 
did  not  expect,  lately  made  upon  his  character,  rouses 
every  faculty  of  defence,  that  reason  suggests,  or  truth  can 
authorize.  The  weapon  now  levelled  at  his  candour  and 
accuracy,  must,  if  possible,  be  parried  by  the  Chaplain  : 
and,  what  to  him  is  exquisitely  painful,  must  be  made  to 
recoil  upon  the  hand  that  wields  it.  From  some  partial 
information,  he  had  been  led  to  expect,  that  the  reverend 
and  learned  author  of  the  address  would  treat  his  little  let- 
ter with  some  degree  of  indulgence,  and  allow  its  writer 
that  credit  for  his  uprightness  and  sincerity,  to  which  the 
most  solemn  professions  of  both,  were  entitled  from  a 
friend.  But  he  is  grieved  to  find,  that  the  Reverend  author 
honours  him  no  longer  with  this  endearing  appellation. 
Without  the  imputation  of  any  personal  offence  ;  nay,  at  a 
time  when  his  bosom  was  warm  with  something  more  than 
the  cold  sentiment  of  perfect  good  will,  when  his  tongue, 
in  every  company,  was  almost  eloquent  at  the  bare  mention 
of  the  Reverend  gentleman's  name,  when  he  was  feasting 
on  tlie  hopes  that  their  united  efforts  were  engaged  in  the 
sacred  cause  of  Christian  toleration,  and  that  a  difference 
in  some  religious  speculations,  would  have  little  tendency 
to  cool  their  mutual  affections — at  this  moment,  I  say,  the 
unfortunate  Chaplain  was  experiencing  a  sad  reverse  in  the 

*  EcqI.  xii.  12. 


14^ 

heart  of  him  whom  he  had  loved  without  reserve,  and  sink* 
ing  to  the  idea  of  a  cast-off,  former  friend.  Under  the 
weight  of  regret  arising  from  this  melancholy  circumstance, 
the  Chaplain's  mind  is  but  ill  disposed  to  strew  over  a  dry 
and  exhausted  subject  those  flowers  of  splendid  diction,  or 
that  gaiety  of  fancy,  which  alone  can  render  it  palatable  to 
the  generality  of  readers.  They,  however,  who  may  have 
experienced  a  similar  trial,  will  find  an  excuse  in  their 
sympathy  for  the  deficiency  of  amusement.  Having  dropt 
this  monumental  tear  over  the  Rev.  gentleman's  former 
friendship,  the  Chaplain  hastens  to  the  object  of  this  pam- 
phlet, which  is  intended  merely  as  a  short  vindication  of  the 
sentiments  contained  in  his  little  letter,  and  of  the  authen* 
ticity  of  the  quotations  upon  which  they  are  grounded.  It 
is  not  his  intention  to  follow  the  Rev.  author  of  the  address 
through  all  the  mazes  of  extraneous  matter  which  he  has 
annexed  lo  his  animadversions  on  some  passages  of  the  let- 
ter, or  to  repel  by  fresh  arguments  any  revived  attacks  upon 
the  Protestant  cause.  Neither  his  leisure  nor  inclination 
now  alloic  him  to  undertake  ivhat  has  been  done  by  much 
abler  hands.  The  Rev.  author  and  Protestants  also  know 
where  to  look  for  these  arguments.  The  writers  cited  by 
the  Chaplain  will  exhibit  them  with  such  profusion,  perspi- 
cuity, and  candour,  that  the  charge  of  gross  misrepresenta- 
tion, unfair  quotations,  partial  answers,  inconsistency,  and 
contradictions,  so  freely  alleged  against  them  by  the  Rev. 
gentleman,  will  make  but  a  slight  impression  upon  minds 
not  previously  warped  by  strong  and  early  prejudices.  In- 
consistency and  contradictions,  indeed,  are  often  compati- 
ble with  every  virtue  of  the  heart,  and  must  be  implied  to 
opinions  that  run  counter  to  our  own  ;  but  ^7*oss  misrepre- 
sentations and  unfair  quotations  are  words  of  a  harsh  import, 
and  will  hardly  apply  to  the  pious  Claude,  the  candid  Chil- 
lingworth,  and  the  venerable  Usher :  names  too  long  conse- 
crated in  the  temples  of  erudition  and  virtue,  to  be  tar- 
nished by  the  breath  of  indiscriminate  accusation.    O  may 


143 

the  Chaplain's  name  be  enrolled  with  these  worthies  in 
the  annals  of  sincerity,  and  as  long*  as  his  private  history 
shall  be  remembered,  may  his  moral  fame  run  parallel  with 
their's ! 

The  Chaplain  has  already  hinted  at  the  two  points  of 
view,  in  which  he  considers  the  Rev.  gentleman's  address. 
He  conceives  it  to  be  an  impeachment  of  his  candour  as  a 
gentleman,  and  of  his  accuracy  as  a  scholar.  He  is  far 
from  imagining,  that  the  Rev.  author  intended  that  his 
publication  should  be  considered  in  so  hostile  a  light. 
Some  expressions  of  regard  for  the  Chaplain  forbid  the  idea. 
But  surely,  no  man  can  admit  his  frequent  suspicions  of  a 
want  of  candour  in  his  former  friend,  or  his  free  arraign- 
ment  of  his  accuracy  in  quotation,  but  must  conclude  him 
destitute  of  these  essentials  to  character.  To  wipe  away, 
therefore,  any  unfavourable  impressions,  which  his  recent 
connexions  may  experience  from  the  address,  the  Chaplain 
is  compelled  to  enter  the  lists  with  a  veteran  divine  of  abi- 
lities very  superior  to  his  own  ;  to  contend  with  a  man, 
whose  extensive  knowledge,  whose  refined  and  elegant 
mind,  can  polish  even  the  roughness  of  scholastic  theology. 
Perhaps,  in  the  benevolence  of  Iris  heart,  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man himself  will  excuse  the  unequal  contest,  when  he 
comes  to  reflect,  that  the  almost  total  loss  and  aversion  of 
the  Chaplain's  former  connexions,  must  greatly  enhance 
the  value  of  those,  with  which  he  has  lately  been  ho- 
noured. 

The  first  assertion  in  the  letter  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
of  Worcester,  at  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  takes  offence, 
is,  "  that  no  consistent  Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  candid  in- 
quirer in  matters  of  religion."  The  Chaplain,  when  he 
penned  this  line,  was  aware  of  the  Rev.  gentleman's  objec- 
tions, and  therefore  marked  the  word  consistent  with  a  spe- 
cial emphasis.  He  trusts,  that  this  precaution  alone  will 
be  able  to  reconcile  his  assertion  with  candour.  For  he 
will  only  ask  this  one  plain  question.  Can  he  be  called  an 


144 

impartial  inquirer,  who,  previous  to  his  inquiry,  is  obliged, 
under  pain  of  damnation,  to  believe  his  own  opinions  to  be 
true,  and  those  of  his  adversary  groundless  and  false  ?  Now, 
is  not  this  precisely  the  case  with  every  consistent  Roman 
Catholic  ?  Does  he  not  believe  with  the  assent  of  faith,  that 
every  article  of  his  creed  is  as  incompatible  with  falsehood 
as  God  himself?  To  what  purpose,  therefore,  are  Protestant 
authors  open  to  his  inspection  ?  Can  he  read  them  with  a 
view  to  religious  information,  to  discover  truths,  which  he 
is  already  persuaded  are  not  to  be  found?  And  yet,  he  must 
be  allowed  to  do  this,  before  the  Chaplain's  candour  can  bo 
questioned.     The  fact  is,  he  may  seek  for  information,  but 
not  religious  information,  in  the  writings  of  Protestants. 
The  Rev.   gentleman  passes  by  this  material  distinction, 
upon  which  the  Chaplain's  candour  principally  rests.     For 
it  is  utterly  impossible,  that  with  a  full  conviction  of  the 
truth  and  evidence  of  a  tenet,  a  man  can  seek  information 
that  may  possibly  refute  it.     He  may  look  into  the  writers 
upon  the  opposite  opinion,  in  order  to  detect  the  inconsist- 
ency of  their  principles,  their  unfair  quotations,  their  par- 
tial answers,  ihe'w  gross  misrepresentations;  but  is  this  to 
seek  religious  information,  even  in  the  sense  that  Leland 
admits  it?  Is  this  a  disposition  to  embrace  truth  on  which 
side  soever  it  shall  appear  7  When  a  man,  for  instance,  con- 
ceives himself  obliged  to  admit  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation  at  the  peril  of  his  soul,  is  he  disposed  to  embrace 
truth  on  which  side  soever  it  appears?  Can  he  doubt  for  a 
moment  the  truth  of  this  tenet  without  ceasing  to  be  a  con- 
sistent Roman  Catholic?  The  Rev.  gentleman   knows  what 
line  of  duty  is  marked  out  by  all  casuists  in  cases  of  this 
nature.     He  knows,  that  so  far  from  harbouring  a  doubt  of 
any  doctrinal  point,  the  understanding  must  instantly  shut 
up  every  avenue,  through  which  it  had  entered,  and  pro- 
duce an  explicit  act  of  belief  of  that  article.*     Can  the 

*  See  ihe  Casuists,  passim. 


145 

Rev.  gentleman  point  out  in  all  this  any  degree  of  that  in" 
difference  so  essential  to  rational  investigation?  With  rea- 
son, therefore,  did  the  Chaplain  affirm,  that  no  "  consistent 
Roman  Catholic  can  be  a  candid  inquirer  in  matters  of  re- 
ligion ;"  and  was  authorized  to  add,  moreover,  that  to  seek 
"  religious  information  in  the  writings  of  Protestants,  was 
to  incur  the  severest  censures  of  the  Roman  Church." 

The  Rev.   gentleman  does   not  pretend   to  deny,  that 
wherever  the  Bulla  Ccense  is  received,  it  must  have  its  ef- 
fect.    In  Italy,  therefore,  and  some  other  countries,  excom- 
munication must  still  be  their  lot,  who  presume  to  peruse 
any  Protestant   treatise    upon    religion.     In   the   parts  of 
Christendom,  however,  where  this  Bull  is  not  received,  the 
works  of  Protestants  may  be  read  with  impunity.     Thus  a 
grievous  crime  in  one  country,  is  not  even  a  venial  offence 
in  another.     This  must  be  the  sentiment  of  every  Roman 
Catholic ;  and  yet  its  consistency  can  hardly  be  admitted. 
For,  if  the  Pope  be  a  Doctor  of  the  Church  by  way  of  emi- 
nence, as  he  is  frequently  styled,  if  he  be  entitled  to  the 
pompous  appellations  of  Master  of  the  World,  of  Universal 
Father,  which  were  frequently  bestowed  on  him  in  the 
eleventh  century  ^*  if  he  be  a  Divine  Majesty,  the  Husband 
of  the  Church,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  Prince  and 
King  of  all  the  Universe  ;  if  he  be  the  Pastor,  the  Physi- 
cian, and  a  God,  to  use  the  language  of  the  council  of  La- 
teran,  speaking  to  Leo  X.,f  who  will  dare  question  his 
right  to  proscribe  such  sources  of  information  as,  in  his 
wisdom,  he  shall  deem  pernicious  to  his  subjects?  Incon- 
sistency apart,  he  must  have  a  daring  soul,  who  shall  ven- 
ture upon  a  pasture,  which  the  Universal  Shepherd  pro- 
nounces to  be  poisonous,  and  forbids  his  flock  to  taste,  at 
the  hazard  of  their  salvation.     The  Rev.  gentleman  will 
not  deny  that  these  lofty  pretensions  have  their  effect  to 
this  day.     Else,  why  are  Roman  Catholics  constantly  ad- 


*  Mosheim's  Church  History,    t  Basnage,  vol.  3,  p.  556. 

N 


146 

vised  to  obtain  permission  to  read  heretical  books  fof  the 
security  of  their  consciences?  Among  the  faculties  as  they 
are  called,  or  parochial  powers  conferred  on  Roman  Catho- 
lic missionaries  even  in  England,  is  not  a  special  license 
granted  for  keeping  and  reading  heretical  books?  The 
Chaplain's  warrant  on  this  head  is  expressed  in  these  words  ; 
Conceditur  facultas  tenendi  et  legendi  lihros  hsereticorum  de 
eorum  religione  tractantes  ad  effectum  eos  expugnandu 
"  Leave  is  granted  to  keep  and  read  the  books  of  heretics, 
which  treat  of  their  religion,  in  order  to  refute  them.^' 
These  lines  place  this  whole  matter  in  its  proper  point  of 
view.  They  evidently  evince  to  ivhat  purpose  Roman  Ca- 
tholics are  indulged  in  the  reading  of  Protestant  authors. 
Not,  it  is  presumed,  for  the  sake  of  impartial  investigation, 
but  solely  to  combat  and  refute  them.  The  Rev.  gentle- 
man may  say,  then,  with  as  much  confidence  as  he  pleases.^ 
that  rational  investigation  is  as  open  to  Catholics,  as  to  any 
other  set  of  men  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  But  persons  of 
real  candour  will  still  give  the  Chaplain  credit  for  the  same 
valuable  quality,  until  it  be  proved  that  religious  informa- 
tion also,  is  equally  open  to  Roman  Catholics  as  to  others ; 
or  that  the  Protestant  Churches  forbid  the  reading  of  Ro- 
man Catholic  writers,  unless  it  be  with  a  view  to  confute 
them. 

Hitherto  the  Chaplain  conceives  his  candour  to  be  unsul- 
lied. The  Rev.  gentleman,  through  eleven  pages  of  his 
address,  has  furnished  a  crowd  of  arguments  to  support  it. 
His  whole  train  of  reasoning  goes  evidently  to  illustrate 
the  Chaplain's  assertion,  "  that  the  Roman  Church  is  daily 
undergoing  a  silent  reformation  :  that  the  dark  monsters  of 
superstition  and  bigotry  are  retreating  gradually  before  the 
light  of  genuine  religion  and  philosophy,  and,  "  that  her 
more  enlightened  divines  reject  or  explain  away  her  most 
uncharitable  tenets."  For  the  Chaplain  will  be  bold  to 
affirm,  that  the  Rev.  gentleman  is  the  first  Roman  Catholic 
divine,  who  has  been  eager,  and  zealous,  and  copious  to 


147 

demonstrate,  that  Protestants  may  be  members  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  and  consequently,  as  such,  in  the  way  to  salva- 
tion. All  who  know  the  Rev.  author  have  reason  to  re- 
joice, that  a  man  of  such  abilities  and  erudition  should 
thus  declare  himself  the  patron  of  genuine  Catholicity. 
The  Chaplain  has  peculiar  reasons  for  joining-  in  the  gene- 
ral congratulation  :  and  most  devoutly  wishes,  that  the  libe- 
rality of  this  sentiment,  unqualified  by  any  restrictions,  may 
find  its  way  into  the  minds  of  the  Rev.  gentleman's  brethren. 
Should  this  fortunately  be  the  case,  certain  congregations 
will  be  no  longer  amused  with  compliments  upon  the  ex- 
clusive soundness  of  their  faith,  nor  Protestants  provoked 
by  menacing  declamations,  much  more  calculated  io  disturb 
the  peace  and  harmony  subsisting  in  these  United  States  be- 
tween religionists  of  all  professions,  than  the  Chaplain's  re- 
cital, or  even  reprobation  of  tenets,  which  it  appears  are 
about  to  take  leave  of  America.  It  is  to  be  hoped  that, 
among  others,  the  doctrine  of  there  being  no  salvation  out 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  communion,  will  soon  depart  from 
this  continent,  as  so  eminent  a  divine  has  already  discarded 
it  from  his  creed. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  begins  this  article  by  observing, 
that  to  be  in  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to 
be  a  member  of  the  Catholic  Church,  are  two  very  different 
things.  But  surely  this  inference  does  not  follow  from 
the  distinction — "  Therefore  a  man  may  be  a  member  of 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  without  being  in  her  commu- 
nion." To  make  this  conclusion  good,  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man must  first  prove,  that  the  Roman  and  Catholic  Church 
are  synonymous  terms,*  which  the  Chaplain  humbly  con- 
ceives would  require  a  longer  essay  than  the  address 
itself.  Every  Protestant  divine  is  ready  to  acknowledge, 
that,  in  the  ordinary  course  of  Providence,  no  salvation  can 

*  Albertus  Pighius,  a  celebrated  canonist,  was  clearly  of  a  different  opin- 
ion— "  Quis  per  Romanam  ecdesiam  unquam  intellexil  aut  univ€rsdl.em  eccU- 
$iam,  aut  generate  consilium."    Pigh.  Eccles.  Hierar.  \i\i,  G.  cap.  3. 


148 

be  obtained  out  of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  Rev.  gen- 
tleman would  persuade  us,  that  the  sentiment  of  his 
Church  goes  no  farther  than  this,  and  he  instances  the 
words  of  Pope  Pius's  creed  to  prove  it.  A  reference  pe- 
culiarly fortunate  for  the  Chaplain  !  For,  if  the  words  of 
that  creed  do  not  manifestly  require  communion  with  the 
Roman  Church  as  essential  to  salvation,  he  will  relinquish 
every  claim  either  to  accuracy  or  candour.  Wherefore,  to 
obviate  any  unfair  accusation  in  future,  of  citing  from  me- 
mory, or  neglecting  to  examine  a  faithful  transcript  of  it, 
he  will  set  before  the  reader  a  few  concluding  articles  of 
this  famous   creed,  literally  translated    from   the    original 

Latin "  I  do  embrace  and   receive  all  and  every  thing 

that  has  been  defined  and  declared  by  the  holy  synod  of 
Trent,  concerning  original  sin  and  justification — I  do,  in 
like  manner,  profess  that  in  the  mass  there  is  offered  a  true, 
proper,  and  propitiatory  sacrifice  for  the  living  and  the 
dead  ;  and  that  in  the  most  holy  sacrament  of  the  Eucha- 
rist there  is  truly,  really,  and  substantially  the  body  and 
blood,  together  with  the  soul  and  divinity  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ ;  and  that  there  is  a  conversion  made  of  the 
whole  substance  of  the  bread  into  the  body,  and  of  the 
whole  substance  of  the  wine  into  the  blood,  which  conver- 
sion the  Catholic  Church  calls  transubstantiation — I  con- 
fess, also,  that  under  one  kind  only,  Christ,  whole  and  en- 
tire, and  a  true  sacrament,  is  received — I  do  firmly  hold, 
that  there  is  a  purgatory,  and  that  the  souls  there  detained 
are  relieved  by  the  suffrages  of  the  faithful — And,  in  like 
manner,  that  the  saints  reigning  tc^ether  with  Christ,  are 
to  be  worshipped  and  invocated  ;  and  that  they  do  offeF 
prayers  unto  God  for  us  ;  and  that  their  relics  are  to  be 
worshipped — I  do  most  firmly  assert,  that  the  images  of 
Christ,  and  of  the  ever  Virgin  mother  of  God,  and  of  the 
other  saints,  ought  to  be  had  and  retained,  and  that  due  ho- 
nour and  worship  ought  to  be  given  to  them — Also,  I  do 
affirm,  that  the  power  oX  indulgences  was  left  by  Christ  ir, 


149 

the  Church,  and  that  the  use  of  them  is  most  wholesome 
to  Christian  people — 1  acknowledge  the  holy  Catholic  and 
Apostolical  Roman  Church  to  be  the  mother  and  mistress 
of  all  Churches  ;  and  I  do  promise  and  swear  true  obedi- 
ence to  the  Roman  pontiff,  the  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  vicar  of  Jesus  Christ,  dec. 
This  true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  man  can  he 
saved,  which  at  this  time  I  freely  profess,  and  truly  hold,  I 
will  take  care,  as  much  as  shall  lie  in  me,  (with  God's 
help,)  constantly  to  keep  whole  and  inviolate,  and  to  con- 
fess the  same  unto  the  last  breath  of  my  life  ;  and  that  it  be 
taught,  held,  and  preached  by  those  under  my  power,  or  of 
whom  the  care  shall  belong  to  me  in  my  profession.  This 
I,  the  said  N.,  do  promise,  vow,  and  swear,  so  help  me 
God,  and  these,  God's  holy  Gospels." 

Such  are  the  concluding  periods  of  Pope  Pius's  creed. 
Can  the  reader  peruse  them  without  wondering  at  the  acri- 
monious censure  thrown  out  by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  that 
"  the  Chaplain  labours  to  fix  on  Roman  Catholics  this  ob- 
noxious tenet  with  a  perseverance  which  carries  with  it  an 
air  of  animosity  ?"  The  severity  of  the  remark  is  freely 
forgiven,  but  surely  its  imprudence  cannot  be  concealed. 
This  true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  man  can  he  saved 
— Mark  the  word  this.  Can  its  meaning  possibly  admit  of 
a  doubt?  Is  it  not,  that  no  man  can  be  saved,  who  has 
not  this  faith  ?  No  man,  therefore,  can  be  saved,  who  does 
not  believe  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  and  of  pur- 
gatory. No  man  can  be  saved,  who  does  not  acknow- 
ledge the  Roman  Church  to  be  *'  the  mother  and  mistress 
of  all  Churches."  No  man  can  be  saved  who  believes  not 
these  articles,  says  the  Pope  :  They  who  protest  against 
them  may  he  saved,  says  the  Rev.  gentleman.  Was  it  pru- 
dent to  provoke  a  reference  to  this  creed,  when  the  mean- 
ing of  it  is  too  clear  and  evident  to  admit  of  any  pallia- 
live,  either  from  the  subtlety  of  scholastic  quibbles,  or 

n2 


150 

from   liberality  struggling   against   the   influence  of  pre^ 
judice  ? 

The  Chaplain,  therefore,  was  authorized  to  advance, 
upon  the  authority  of  this  creed,  that  neither  transubstan- 
iiatiojiy  nor  the  infallibility  of  the  Roman  Church,  are 
taught  more  explicitly  as  articles  of  faith,  than  the  impos- 
sibility of  being  saved  out  of  the  communion  of  this 
Church.  He  is  justified,  moreover,  in  asserting,  that  soTne 
have  laboured  hard  to  palliate  the  severity  of  this  unpopu- 
lar tenet,  and  that  others  have  rejected  it,  as  no  article  qf 
their  creed.  "  But,"  says  the  Rev.  gentleman,  "  to  be  in 
the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church,  and  to  be  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Catholic  Church,  are  two  very  distinct  things." 
The  Chaplain  will  not  lead  the  reader  through  all  the 
mazes  of  controversy,  to  consider  the  propriety  of  this  dis- 
tinction. Suffice  it  to  ask,  if  these  in  reality  be  two  dis- 
tinct things,  viz  :  To  believe  the  doctrines  of  transubstan- 
tiation,  of  purgatory,  of  saint  worship,  <^c.,  to  acknowledge 
the  liomun  Church  to  be  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
Churches;  and  to  be  in  the  coinmunion  of  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic Church  7  Are  these  indeed  two  distinct  things  ? 
Do  not  these  doctrines  discriminate  her  from  all  other 
Churches  1  Can  a  man  promise,  vow,  and  swear  freely  to 
profess  and  truly  to  hold  them  without  being  a  Roman  Ca- 
tholic, and,  consequently,  (unless  under  actual  excommuni- 
cation,), without  being  in  communion  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church  ?  Wherefore  it  is  evident,  that  to  profess  the 
faith  set  down  in  Pope  Pius'  creed,  and  to  be  in  the  com- 
munion of  the  Roman  Church,  is  one  and  the  same  thing; 
and  it  follows  of  course,  that,  if  no  man  can  be  saved 
without  this  faith,  no  man  can  be  saved  without  this  com- 
munion. 

The  accidental  salvation  which  the  Rev.  gentleman's 
authorities  allow  to  Protestants,  by  no  means  softens  the 
harshness  of  the  tenet.  A  few  exceptions  to  a  general 
rule  serve  only  to  strengthea  it.     Not  but  what  the  Chap- 


151 

lain  most  cordially  wishes,  that  such  in  reality  were  the 
doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church.  A  revolution  of  this  na- 
ture would  be  peculiarly  fortunate  for  him.  The  unmerited 
coldness  and  illiberal  abuse,  which  he  has  experienced 
from  several  of  his  former  connexions,  would  subsist  no 
longer  towards  ^fellow  CatJiolic;  nor  would  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman himself  indulge  in  distressful  feelings,  or  waste  his 
pity  on  a  brother  whom  he  may  regard  consistently  with  his 
principles,  and  ot/ght  to  treat  as  a  member  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  As  every  definition  of  heresy,  which  the  Rev. 
gentleman  alleges,  contains  an  explicit  apology  for  the 
Chaplain,  he  cannot  but  adopt  them  with  singular  satisfac- 
tion. Nay,  he  will  enforce  the  sentiment  by  an  additional 
passage  from  St.  Augustin,  which,  he  knows,  excludes  him 
in  a  special  manner  from  the  guilt  of  this  crime.  *'  In  my 
opinion,"  says  he,  "  a  heretic  is  a  person  who,  for  some 
temporal  convenience,  but  chiefly  for  the  sake  of  glory  and 
pre-eminence,  broaches  new  and  false  opinions,  or  adopts 
them."* 

"  The  Chaplain  knows,"  says  the  Rev.  gentleman,  "that 
many  of  the  most  eminent  Protestant  writers  have  asserted, 
that  all  the  essentials  of  true  religion  are  to  be  found  in 
our  communion,  and  surely,  the  possibility  of  obtaining 
salvation  is  one  of  these  essentials."  But  what  follows 
from  this  charitable  assertion  of  some  Protestant  divines, 
but  a  more  powerful  claim  to  Christian  liberality,  which 
they  only  have  a  right  to  dispute,  who  expressly  allow  that 
all  the  essentials  of  true  religion  may  he  found  also  i?i  the 
Protestant  communion.  Do  the  passages  alleged  by  the 
Rev.  gentleman  countenance  this  idea?  On  the  contrary, 
do  they  not  all  manifestly  suppose,  that  every  Protestant  is 
in  reality  a  heretic,  however  his  sincerity  and  ignorance 


*  Quandoquidem  kcsreticus  est,  ul  mea  fert  opinio,  qui  alicujus  temporalis 
commodi,  et  maxime  glorias  principalusque  sui  gratia,  falsas  ac  novas  opiniones^ 
vetgignit,  vet  sequitur.    Aug,  de  util.  credendi. 


152 

may  accidentally  excuse  him  from  the  guilt  of  heresy  T 
But  the  Chaplain  will  suppose  that  the  Rev.  gentleman 
allows  salvation  not  only  to  the  simple  and  illiterate,  but  to 
the  inquisitive  and  learned  of  the  Protestant  communion. 
He  will  suppose,  with  the  illustrious  Bergier,  that  all  Pro- 
testants, who,  "  with  sincerity,  or  through  inculpable  ig- 
norance, remain  in  their  error,  are  really  children  of  the 
Catholic  Church."  He  will  suppose,  moreover,  that  this 
sincerity,  this  inculpable  ignorance,  may  excuse  a  Protes- 
tant minister,  as  well  as  the  most  illiterate  of  his  flock. 
Now,  if  this  may  possibly  be  the  case  ;  if  Protestants  of  all 
degrees,  conditions,  and  capacities,  7nay  be  children  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  does  not  the  spirit  of  charity  command 
us  to  consider,  and  the  law  of  justice  to  treat  them  as  such? 
Or,  if  they  receive  not  this  treatment,  does  it  not  follow, 
that  they  are  not  regarded  in  so  favourable  a  light  ?  Here 
is  one  of  those  cases,  in  which  the  conduct  of  a  Christian 
society,  is  the  best  comment  upon  the  spirit  and  nature  of 
its  belief.  To  conclude,  the  Rev.  gentleman's  reasoning 
must  be  this  :  "  that,  notwithstanding  the  lofty  pretensions 
of  the  Roman  Church,*  the  decrees  of  her  pontiffs,  the  de- 

*  The  most  celebrated  divine  of  the  French  Church,  and  its  most  eloquent 
champion,  thus  delivers  his  sentiments  on  the  spirit  of  toleration  belonging  to 
his  communion:  "Thus  we  clearly  see,  that  what  renders  this  Church  so 
odious  to  Protestants,  is  principally,  and  more  than  all  other  tenets,  her  holy 
and  inflexible  incompatibility,  (incompatibilite,)  if  I  may  so  speak.  It  is  be- 
cause she  will  stand  alone,  because  she  conceives  herself  to  be  the  spouse,  a 
title  that  admits  of  no  division  ;  it  is,  because  she  cannot  suffer  her  doctrines 
to  be  questioned,  because  she  confides  in  the  promises  and  perpetual  assist- 
ance of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For,  in  reality,  this  it  is,  that  renders  her  so  severe, 
so  unsociable,  and,  consequently,  so  odious  to  all  sects  separated  from  her, 
which,  for  the  most  part,  desired  nothing  more  at  the  beginning,  than  to  be 
tolerated  by  her,  or  not  to  be  fulminated  by  her  anathemas.  But  her  fioly 
severity,  and  the  holy  delicacy  of  her  sentiments,  forbade  such  indulgence,  or 
rather  such  weakness,  and  her  inflexibility,  which  makes  her  hated  byschis- 
matical  sects,  renders  her  dear  and  venerable  to  the  children  of  God." 
Bossuet,  sixieme  avertissement  sur  les  letlres  de  M.  Jurieu,  page  302.  Again, 
p.  301,  "  She  (the  Roman  Church,)  subscribes  to  the  holy  Scripture  with  all 
other  Christians,  as  to  a  book  inspired  by  God,  and  dictated  immediately  by 


153 

cision  of  her  councils,  the  writings  of  her  champions,  and 
the  execution  of  her  anathemas,  it  is  still,  and  ever  was  the 
opinion  of  all  her  divines,  since  St.  Augustin,  that  they 
who  protest  against  her  doctrines  wja?/and  ought  to  be  con- 
sidered as  true  children  of  the  Catholic  Church."  If  the 
old  maxim  be  just,  that  He  proves  nothing  who  proves  too 
much,  the  reader  may  apply  it  in  the  present  instance. 

With  respect  to  the  Christian  charity,  which  Protestants 
entertain  for  Roman  Catholics,  the  Rev.  gentleman's  own 
words  will  evince  how  superior  it  is  to  that  of  their  oppo- 
nents :  "You  ProtestantSj"  says  he,  "  allow  our  Church  to 
be  a  true  Church.  Your  universities  have  declared,  on  a 
solemn  consultation,  that  a  person  not  pretending  to  the 
plea  of  invincible  ignorance,  may  safely  leave  the  Protes- 
tant Church,  and  become  a  member  of  ours,  because  it  is  a 
safe  way  to  salvation."     Was  the  Rev.  gentleman  aware  of 


the  Holy  Ghost,  and  she  is  only  excluded  from  this  pretended  society,  (of 
tderaling  Christians,)  because  she  is  and  ever  will  be  opposed  to  religious 
indifference  by  her  essential  constitutions;  and, in  one  word,  because,  as  M. 
Jurieu  says,  she  is  the  most  intolerant  of  all  Christian  societies."  How  will 
any  thing  soften  so  formal  a  confession,  but  the  silent  reformation  mentioned 
by  the  Chaplain?  Again,  at  the  end  of  the  2d  vol.  of  his  Avertissemens,  &c. 
among  otiier  heretics  he  reckons  the  advocates  for  religious  toleration,  and 
sets  this  down  as  one  of  their  doctrines,  "They  maintain,  that  the  magistrate 
has  no  power  to  punish  heretics."  Here  is  a  short  specimen  of  that  flaming 
orthodoxy,  which  was  blended  with  all  the  refinements  of  gallantry  in  the 
motley  etiquette  of  Louis  the  Fourteenth's  court.  At  a  period  preceding  this 
we  meet  with  the  following  sentiment  in  the  greatest  controvertist  of  the 
Roman  Church  :  "  In  the  Catholic  Church  many  are  bad,  but  of  the  heretics 
(speaking  of  Protestants,)  not  one  is  good."  In  ecclesia  Catholica  sunt  pluri- 
mi  mali,  ex  hcereticis  nullus  est  bonus.  Bellar.  lib.  4.  de  eccles.  milit.  cap.  13. 
Where  the  charitable  Cardinal  must  mean,  if  he  argue  logically,  that  no 
Protestant  is  good  in  tliat  line,  in  which  many  Catholics  are  bad,  that  is,  in 
the  line  of  morality.  As  to  the  decisions  of  the  popes  upon  this  head,  one 
instance  out  of  many  shall  suffice  :  "  We  declare,  say,  define,  and  pronounce 
that  to  every  human  creature  it  is  absolutely  necessary  for  salvation  to  be 
eubject  to  the  Roman  pontiflf!"  Subesse  Romano  pontijici  omni  humance  crea- 
iurcB  declaramus,  dicimus,  definimus  el  pronunciamus  omnino  esse  de  necessi- 
tate salidis.  Bonifac.  viii.  in  extra vag.  de  raajoritate  et  obedientia  cap.  Unani. 
Banctara. 


154 

the  high  compliment  which  he  here  pays  to  Protestant  mo- 
deration, to  that  Christian  condescension,  which  the  re- 
formed Churches  have  ever  manifested  for  composing  the 
differences  of  Christendom?  They  know  nothing  of  that 
sacred  and  inJJ.exible  incompatibility,  of  that  Jioly  severity 
and  delicacy,  so  highly  preconized  by  the  bishop  of  Meaux 
as  the  characteristics  of  his  Church ;  which  we  are  told, 
however,  says  no  more  on  this  head,  than  do  all  other  Chris- 
tian societies.  They  know  nothing  of  the  subtile  distinc- 
tions, the  impossible  suppositions,  which  are  held  out  as 
cloaks  for  an  uncharitable  tenet,  but  they  know  that  cha- 
rity itself  is  the  soul  of  religion,  the  very  bond  of  perfec- 
tion ;  they  know,  '*  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons, 
but  that  in  every  nation,  he  that  feareth  him  and  worketh 
righteousness  is  accepted  with  him ;"  (Acts  x.  34,  35.) 
they  know,  that  faith  will  ever  authorize  concessions, 
which  charity  may  demand ;  they  know,  that  the  faith 
ought  to  be  hept  in  the  bond  of  peace  ;  they  know,  that  all 
who  maintain  the  common  principles  of  Christianity, 
which  at  all  times,  and  in  all  places,  have  constituted  the 
creed  of  all  orthodox  believers,  and  who  walk  according 
to  this  rule,  neither  adding  to  this  faith,  tenets  that  may 
abolish,  nor  committing  immoralities,  that  may  tarnish  it ; 
they  know  "  that  peace  shall  be  upon  them,  and  mercy, 
and  upon  the  Israel  of  God."  (Gal.  vi.  16.)  These,  the 
Chaplain  trusts,  are  the  sentiments  of  Protestants.  When 
the  Roman  pontiff,  his  councils,  his  divines,  and  universi- 
ties, hold  a  similar  language;  when  "  they  shall  declare, 
on  solemn  consultations,  that  a  person,  not  pretending  to 
the  plea  of  invincible  ignorance,  may  safely  leave  the 
Roman  Church  and  become  a  member  of  ours,  because  it 
is  a  safe  way  to  salvation  ;"  then,  and  not  till  then,  can 
they  aspire  to  the  same  liberality  with  Protestants,  or  ob- 
tain credit  for  apologies,  which,  though  sincere  in  indivi- 
duals, are  not  authorized  by  the  Church,  for  which  they 
are  intended.     And   now,  perhaps,  the  reader  will  not  be 


155 

at  a  loss  to  account  for  the  Chaplain's  fixing  this  tenet  on 
the  Roman  Church.  At  any  rate,  let  him  compare  the 
grounds  of  this  charge  with  the  Rev,  gentleman's  reply, 
and  if,  after  divesting  his  mind  of  prejudice,  he  should 
embrace  this  opinion,  the  Chaplain  will  still  be  comforted 
in  the  humiliation  of  his  defeat,  at  the  accession  of  liberal 
fame  to  his  former  connexions. 

The  field  over  which  the  Chaplain  must  next  follow  the 
Rev.  gentleman,  is  very  intricate  and  extensive.  Through 
forty-five  pages  of  his  address,  he  displays  all  his  powers  of 
reasoning,  to  uphold  the  system  of  infallibility  upon  the 
ruins  of  the  few  arguments,  which  appeared  to  the  Chap- 
lain sufficient  to  overturn  it.  He  had  asserted,  that  many 
discriminating  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church  could  not 
be  proved  from  the  Scriptures  ;  and  had  made  good  this  as- 
sertion from  the  concessions  of  several  Roman  Caholic  di- 
vines. He  therefore  concluded,  that  they  must  rest 
entirely  upon  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  that  taught 
them.  He  then  proceeded  briefly  to  investigate  the  claim 
to  this  mighty  prerogative,  and  to  examine  it  on  the  grounds 
of  reason  and  revelation.  On  the  same  foundations  will  he 
now  erect  his  fortress  of  defence. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  begins  by  observing,  that  if  the 
claim  to  infallibility  be  found  to  rest  on  solid  and  convinc- 
ing proofs,  then  certainly  it  becomes  agreeable  to  the  dic- 
tates of  reason,  and  the  soundest  principles  of  morality,  to 
assent  to  the  doctrines  proposed  by  this  infallible  authority, 
though  we  may  notfidly  comprehend  them.  And  sofarihe 
Chaplain  will  surely  agree  with  him,.  But  does  it  follow 
from  this  argument,  that  the  collier's  profession  of  faith, 
mentioned  by  Bellarmine,  could  be  rational,  who  is  not 
supposed  to  have  examined  on  iDhat  grounds  this  claim  to 
infallibility  is  established,  or  to  have  had  abilities  to  disco- 
ver that  it  rests  on  solid  and  convincing  proof s  ?  Without 
knowing  probably,  what  either  himself,  or  the  Church  be- 
lieved, he  satisfied  his  mind,  and  secured  his  orthodoxy,  by 


156 

a  vague  profession  of  believing  what  the  Church  believed, 
upon  every  subject.*  The  Chaplain  is  still  of  opinion,  that 
to  plead  the  merit  and  efficacy  of  this  answer  to  every  re- 
ligious difficulty,  is  to  offer  an  insult  to  reason;  and  the 
Rev.  gentleman  must  think  so  likewise,  or  he  would  hardly 
have  exhorted  his  friends  to  examine  the  grounds  of  their 
religion  over  and  over  again.  The  Rev.  gentleman  asks 
the  Chaplain,  if  it  be  weakness  and  credulity  to  submit  to 
divine  authority,  although  ive  do  not  fully  comprehend  the 
doctrines  it  delivers?  The  Chaplain  will  demand,  in  his 
turn,  where  he  even  hints  at  the  sentiment,  which  that 
question  insinuates?  Does  he  not  declare  repeatedly,  that 
his  belief  is  the  Apostles'  creed;  the  Bible  his  religion? 
How  then  can  he  refuse  his  assent  to  the  mysteries  enu- 
merated by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  which,  his  reason  tells 
him,  are  delivered  in  them  both?  The  fact  is,  the  Rev. 
gentleman  takes  the  proofs  of  infallibility  for  granted,  and 
then  arraigns  the  Chaplain  for  dissenting  from  its  decrees. 
He  adds,  moreover,  that  the  Chaplain's  arguments,  drawn 
from  reason,  m.ust  furnish  powerful  arms  to  the  Deist,  the 
Arian,  and  the  Socinian.  But,  the  obvious  application  of 
the  Chaplain's  mode  of  reasoning  to  the  Rev.  gentleman's 
own  principles,  shows  tliis  charge  to  be  groundless.  For 
does  he  not  tell  us  that  "  the  only  rational  method  we  can 
pursue,  in  establishing  a  contested  doctrine,  is  to  show, 
that  it  is  proposed  to  our  belief  by  an  infallible  authority  ?" 
Now,  how  does  the  Chaplain's  reasoning,  when  applied  to 
this  principle,  countenance  the  Deist,  the  Arian,  and  the 
Socinian?  Will  the  following  mode  of  arguing  be  admit- 
ted?  "Reason  and  religion  can  never  be  at  variance; 
therefore,  we  must  adopt  the  principles  of  a  Deist  or  an 
Arian.  The  most  rational  religion  must  always  be  the  best; 
therefore,  we  must  deny  the  infallibility  of  Scripture.    The 

♦  This  ridiculous  story  of  the  collier  and  his  faith,  is  seriously  related  by 
Bellarmine,  dearie  benemoriendi,  lib.  2.  cap.  9.  frora  Teter  Barochius,  Bishop 
of  Padua. 


157 

language  of  reason  was  never  yet  rejected  with  impunity ; 
therefore,  we  must  deny  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity."  How 
would  the  enemies  of  revelation  triumph  at  concessions  of 
this  nature  ?  Is  it  prudent,  in  any  matter,  entirely  to  re- 
linquish the  field  of  reason  to  an  adversary  ?  Again — 
Will  the  Rev.  gentleman  be  ever  able  to  persuade  a  rea- 
sonable man,  that  the  mystery  of  the  Trinity,  for  instance, 
and  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  present  the  same 
difficulties  to  his  senses  and  understanding?  What  have 
the  senses  to  do  with  the  Godhead?  Or  can  the  under- 
^  standing  presume  to  point  at  contradictions,  in  an  object 
wrapt  up  in  mystery  unsearchable,  and  lying  infinitely  be- 
yond the  weak  faculties  of  man  ?  But,  with  transuhstan- 
tiatioUj  the  case  is  quite  otherwise :  Here  is  a  matter  that 
admits  of  experiment,  upon  which  our  reason  can  argue, 
and  our  senses  can  pronounce.  The  two  former  must  be 
respected,  when  they  discover  gross  and  evident  contra- 
dictions, and  the  latter  attended  to,  when  they  decide  upon 
qualities  within  the  range  of  their  essential  faculties. 
Bread  must  be  bread,  while  all  its  natural  and  discriminat- 
ing properties  are  perceived  by  the  senses,  or  there  is  an 
end  of  this  source  of  information  and  judgment.  "  That 
which  you  saw,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  is  the  bread  and  the 
cup :  which  your  very  eyes  declare  unto  you."*  This  ma- 
terial difference  being  settled,  well  might  the  Chaplain  dis- 
claim an  infallible  Church  authority  for  certain  tenets, 
which  reason  and  experience  tells  him  are  incredible  and 
groundless ;  and  yet  admit  an  infallible  Scripture  autho- 
rity, which,  however  it  may  challenge  our  assent  to  in- 
scrutable mysteries,  yet  ofTers  no  violence  to  our  senses 
and  understanding.  And  now,  the  "  Chaplain,  or  any  other 
Protestant,  can  tell  the   Rev.  gentleman,  why   a  Boling- 

*  Quod  ergo  vidistis,  panis  est  et  calix ;  quod  vobis  etiam  oculi  veslri  denun- 
ciant.  Aug.  in  serra.  de  sacrara.  apud  Bedam,  in  1  Cor.  10.  etRetrom.  de 
Corp.  et  sang,  domini.  vel  in  serm.  de  verb.  dom.  ut  citatiir  ab  Algero  lib.  1. 
d  e  sacr.  cap.  5. 

O 


153 

broke,  or  a  Hume,  had  not  as  good  a  right  to  use  the  ar- 
gument mentioned  at  page  56,  against  the  general  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  as  he  had  to  urge  it  against  the 
Roman  Church.''  The  reason  is,  because  he  and  they, 
after  discussing  every  claim  to  infallibility,  conclude,  that 
this  prerogative  belongs  not  to  mortals,  but  to  the  word  of 
God  only,  delivered  in  the  Scriptures. 

But  the  Rev.  gentleman's  scattered  arguments  on  this 
head  beginning  now  to  converge  to  a  point,  it  will  be  less 
difficult  to  seize  their  meaning,  and  methodize  their  dis- 
cussion. 

He  first  endeavours  to  uphold  the  system  of  infallibility 
upon  the  scriptural  passages  examined  by  the  Chaplain. 
He  then  proceeds  to  throw  out  some  additional  proofs  for 
its  reality,  and  concludes  by  striving  to  vindicate  the  Ro- 
man Church,  from  the  imputation  of  variety  or  novelty  in 
her  tenets,  on  which  the  Chaplain  had  grounded  his  last 
short  argument  against  her  infallibility.  Throughout  the 
whole  of  this  controversy,  he  frequently  repeats  his  former 
insinuations  of  a  want  of  candour  and  accuracy  in  the 
Chaplain. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  appears  displeased,  that  the  Chap- 
lain should  say,  that  few  scriptural  texts  seem  to  counte- 
nance infallibility  ;  and  that  he  should  insinuate,  he  was  at 
anytime  discouraged  from  examining  them.  Why  he  once 
refused  to  do  so,  the  Chaplain  trusts  he  has  not  now  to  ex- 
plain. The  reader  will  recollect,  whether  the  kind  of  ex- 
amination formerlj  allowed  him  is  deserving  of  the  name. 
That  few  scriptural  texts  make  for  infallibility,  he  shall 
still  take  the  liberty  to  think,  notwithstanding  the  thirty 
enumerated  by  Father  Mumfort,  whose  work  he  has  read 
without  discovering  him,  in  any  line,  an  adversary  worthy 
of  his  Chillingworth,  or  his  Usher.  The  truth  is,  the  Ca- 
tholic Scriptvristj  like  many  others,  has  an  admirable  faci- 
lity at  finding  whatever  he  wishes  for  in  the  Scriptures. 
He  knew  the  great  advantage  in  not  being  over  delicate  in 


159 

the  choice  of  texts,  and  that  it  is  no  difficult  matter  to  im- 
pose them  upon  people,  who  value  them  more  for  their 
number  than  their  weight. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  begins  by  telling  us,  that,  "  among 
other  proofs  of  her  infallibility,  the  Catholic  Church  alleges 
these  words  of  Christ  to  St.  Peter.*  '  Thou  art  Peter,  and 
upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my  Church,  and  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  not  prevail  against  it.' "  Regarding  this  text  in  a 
very  important  light,  he  accordingly  bestows  upon  it  eight 
pages  of  his  address,  and  enforces  it  with  all  the  ingenuity 
of  which  he  is  master.  The  Chaplain  wdll  attend  him  over 
as  much  of  this  ground,  as  may  be  necessary  to  illustrate 
the  few  lines  of  his  letter  which  refer  to  this  passage. 

Without  citing  any  authority  for  a  position,  which  he 
took  for  granted,  and  knew  to  be  certain,  he  just  mentioned, 
en  passant,  that  the  Greek  word  Hades  ought  rather  to  be 
translated  Death  than  Hell.  At  the  bottom  of  the  page, 
however,  he  adopts  both  meanings  of  this  controverted  word, 
and  yet  with  all  this  precaution  could  not  entirely  escape 
the  Rev.  gentleman's  censure.  But  it  is  fortunately  in  his 
power  to  produce  so  many  authorities  to  support  his  accu- 
racy in  this  instance,  that  were  he  inclined  to  indulge  in  a 
parade  of  erudition,  he  could  swell  his  answer,  on  this  sub- 
ject only,  to  a  bulk  superior  to  the  Rev.  gentleman's  ad- 
dress. He  will  just  set  down  a  few  passages,  which,  he 
trusts  will  carry  conviction  to  the  reader :  observing  first, 
that  by  death,  he  meant  rather  the  permanent,  than  actval 
separation  between  the  body  and  soul — a  state  of  extinc- 
tion, or  a  cessation  of  life.  Now,  in  this  sense,  the  word 
Hades  is  perpetually  used  by  the  ancients.  The  Greek 
poets  apply  it  to  death,  as  frequently  as  ThanatosA  So- 
phocles, in  the  beginning  of  his  TrachinicB,  puts  this  senti- 
ment in  Dejanira's  mouth;  "that  although  it  were  an  old 
man's  saying,  that  happiness  or  wo  cannot  be  known  before 

*  Matt.  xvi.  18.    t  See  Pindar.  Olyrap.  Ode  8,  &c.  &c. 


160 

death,  yet  she  knew  her  own  life  to  be  unfortunate  jt^/v  uc 
st^H  /uoxiiv ;  before  she  went  to  Hades;''^  these  last  words  are 
explained  by  the  ancient  scholiast  by  tt^o  ^uvum  before  death. 
The  same  poet,  in  his  Ajax,  says;  that  "  He  is  better  who 
lies  in  Hades,  than  he  who  is  afflicted  with  a  mortal  dis- 
ease." Here  also  the  scholiast  expounds  lying  in  Hades, 
by  the  word  Ti^vma>?y  or  being  dead.  Innumerable  passages 
from  the  ancient  Greek  writers,  of  a  similar  import,  must 
be  omitted,  to  insist  upon  others  of  still  greater  weight. 
What  will  be  objected  to  the  authority  of  the  Vulgate,  or 
the  Latin  translation  of  the  Bible  approved  of,  and  ordered 
to  be  used  by  the  council  of  Trent?  KATctyuc  «?  Trvxug  *«tcf«  kai 
Avstyii;  "  thou  leadest  to  the  gates  of  hell,  and  bringest 
back  again."*  Now,  how  is  Hadou  rendered  by  the  Vul- 
gate? Is  it  not  by  the  Latin  word  mortis,  or  of  death  ?  De- 
ducis  ad  portas  mortis  et  reducis  1  It  is  written,  (Proverb, 
xiv.  12.  and  xvi.  25.)  "  There  is  a  way,  which  seemeth 
right  unto  a  man,  but  the  end  thereof  are  the  ways  of 
death."  The  Seventy  Interpreters,  in  both  these  places, 
use  Hades  for  death.  So  in  Hos.  (xiii.  14.)  where  the  He- 
brew and  Greek  both  read  "  I  will  deliver  them  from  the 
hand  of  Hades,''^  the  Latin  Vulgate  has  "  de  manu  mortis 
liberabo  eos,"  that  is,  from  the  "  hand  of  death  ;''^  which 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  tells  us,  is  in  reality  the  same  thing. 
"  He  has  redeemed  us,"  says  this  father,  "  from  the  hand 
of  hell,  that  is,  from  the  power  of  death:'-\  "  The  disso- 
lution of  the  soul  from  the  body,"  says  St.  Chrysostom,  "  is 
not  only  called  death  but  Hades  also.  For  listen  to  the 
patriarch  Jacob  saying,  'Ye  will  bring  my  old  age  with 
sorrow  to  Hades.'  (Gen.  xlii.  38.)  And  the  prophet  again  ; 
'  Hades  has  opened  its  mouth.'  (Isai.  v.  14.)  And  in  many 
places  will  you  find  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  in  our  trans- 
lation we  call  death  Hades.^^X     The  learned  Eusebius,  on 


*  Wisd.  xvi.  13.    t  Cyr.  in  Hoseam.  p.  371. 

X  Chrys.  Serm.  2.  in  Pascha.  torn.  5.  edit.  Savil.  pag.  587. 


161 

the  very  text  that  gave  rise  to  this  digression,  writes  ex- 
pressly, as  follows ;  "  That  the  Church  doth  not  yield  to  the 
gates  of  deaths  Trvxnig  ^-uyxtou,  on  account  of  that  one  saying, 
which  Christ  did  utter,  'Upon  this  rock  will  I  build  my 
Church,  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against 
it."*  St.  Ambrose  concludes  also  from  the  same  text, 
''That  faith  is  the  foundation  of  the  Church :  for  it  was 
not  said  of  Peter's  jlesh,  but  of  his  faith,  that  the  gates  of 
death  should  not  prevail  against  it^"t  The  reader,  no 
doubt,  is  convinced  by  this  time,  and  so,  perhaps,  is  the 
-Rev.  gentleman  also,  that  in  this  matter  the  Chaplain  did 
not  "trust  to  his  private  interpretation  of  Scripture,  in  op- 
position to  the  general  sense  and  understanding  of  the 
Church  in  all  ages,"  or  borrow  his  ideas  from  the  sugges- 
tions of  Beza.  Let  the  Rev.  gentleman  only  confess,  that 
he  was  somewhat  off  his  guard  in  this  hasty  accusation, 
and  it  will  be  thought  of  no  more.  The  meaning  then  of 
the  text  is,  that  the  gates  or  powers  of  hell,  or  rather  of 
death,  will  never  prevail  against  the  Christian  Church. 

The  Chaplain  had  expressed,  and  expresses  again,  his 
assent  to  this  truth ;  and  concludes  from  it,  that  perpetuity 
is  annexed  to  the  Christian  Church.  For  if  she  shall 
never  be  reduced  by  Hades,  that  is  by  death,  to  a  state  of 
extinction,  she  must  of  consequence  be  perpetual  and  im- 
mortal. Whereas,  if  Hades  in  the  text  be  taken  for  Hell 
only,  this  limitation  will  exclude  the  idea  of  perpetuity  and 
infallibility  also.  For,  admitting  that  the  infernal  powers 
sliould  not  prevail  in  abolishing  the  Christian  Church,  does 
it  follow,  that  no  other  powers  shall  succeed  in  their  at- 
tempts against  her  ?  Let  us  suppose,  that  the  eloquence 
of  Pagan  philosophy,  the  allurements  of  human  passions, 
or  the  flames  of  persecution,  had  proved  subversive  of  the 

*  Euseb.  lib.  1.  praeparat.  Evang.  pag.  7. 

t  Fides  ergo  est  ecclesiae  firmamentura :  non  enim  de  came  Petri,  eed  de 
fide  dictum  est,  quia  porta?  mortis  non  ei  prevalebunt.  Ambr.  de  Incarnat. 
sacram,  cap.  5. 

o2 


162 

Christian  name.  In  this  case,  the  Church  would  have 
failed,  without  the  powers  of  hell  being  any  wise  concern 
ed,  or  the  promise  of  Christ  being  called  in  question.  For 
the  world,  the  Jfesh,  and  the  devil,  are  the  mortal  foes  to 
religious  societies,  as  well  as  to  the  several  individuals 
who  compose  them.  If  so,  how  does  the  text,  in  securing 
the  Church  against  the  last,  necessarily  ensure  her  against 
her  two  former  enemies  ?  If  she  fail  principally  by  erring, 
may  not  the  world  and  the  fesh  contribute  as  effectually  to 
her  downfall,  as  the  powers  of  hell  itself?  Wherefore,  it 
appears  certain,  that  perpetuity  only  is  promised  in  the 
text.  Nor  should  we  adopt  the  word  Jiell,  does  it  counte- 
nance any  other  prerogative  :  for,  even  in  this  case,  the 
only  meaning  we  can  gather  is,  "  that  the  infernal  powers 
shall  not  prevail  against,  that  is,  ultimately  overcome,  and 
enslave  the  Church  ;  or  abolish  the  great  and  essential 
tenets  expressed  in  the  Apostles'  creed.''''  The  Rev.  gentle- 
man harshly  brands  a  short  and  innocent  paraphrase  on  the 
text  quite  similar  to  this,  as  a  "strong  instance  of  confi- 
dent assertion  usurping  the  place  of  solid  argument."  But, 
until  he  shows  that  Christ's  Church  can  subsist  without  his 
religion,  or  that  he  did  not  foresee  that,  at  some  periods  of 
time,  she  would  be  feeble  and  cZ^sorcZere6Z,  the  candid  reader 
will  hardly  accede  to  this  censure. 

As  to  the  passages  which  he  adduces  from  the  "  Question 
of  Questions,"  and  "  The  Shortest  Way  to  end  Disputes 
about  Religion,"  they  manifestly  rest  upon  these  false  sup- 
positions :  that  the  Roman  Church,  and  others  in  commu- 
nion with  her,  was  the  only  visible  Church  when  she  pro- 
posed points  of  faith,  which  Protestants  deem  erroneous, 
and  that  every  error,  in  the  line  of  religion,  utterly  de- 
stroys the  Church  that  teaches  it.  Now,  both  these  posi- 
tions appear  to  be  groundless :  First,  because  whenever 
these  points  of  faith  were  publicly  held  out  as  terms  of 
communion  by  the  Roman  Church,  they  were  rejected  by 
other  societies  of  Christians,  who  were  equally  branches  of 


163 

the  Catholic  Church.  This  was  the  case  at  the  several 
periods,  when  image-worship,  purgatory,  transubstantia- 
tion,  &;c.  were  added  to  the  list  of  original  tenets.  Se- 
condly, because  the  Church  is  not  destroyed  by  every  re- 
ligious error,  but  by  such  only  as  are  fundamental. 
Wherefore,  until  an  error  pervades  every  Christian  society, 
which  is  directly  levelled  at  some  article  of  the  Apostles' 
or  the  Roman  creed,*  the  common  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity must  remain  unshaken,  and  the  professors  of  them 
be  members  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Against  these  es- 
sential tenets,  this  sole  foundation,  the  powers  of  death,  or 
of  hell,  are  never  to  prevail.!  They  may  obscure,  and 
weaken,  and  shake  them,  by  the  superstructure  of  error, 
and  by  the  poisonous  exhalations  of  vice  ;  but  they  shall 
newer  prevail  against  them.  The  Rev.  gentleman  asks 
"  if  the  gates  of  hell  do  not  prevail  against  a  Church  re- 
quiring an  idolatrous  worship,  or  teaching  those  mysteries 
of  iniquity,  viz.  the  heresy  of  persecution,  dec.  mentioned 
in  the  Chaplain's  letter."  The  answer  is,  that  as  the  whole 
Catholic  Church  never  adopted  these  maxims,  the  question 
becomes  useless.  If,  however,  the  Roman  Church  appear 
guilty  on  this  head,  it  belongs  to  her  advocates  to  clear  her 
as  well  as  they  can. 

The  Chaplain  had  advanced,  "that  the  gates  of  death  or 
of  hell  should   not  prevail  against   the  essential   tenets  of 

*  This  creed  is  the  same  with  that  which  is  repeated  in  the  liturgy  of  the 
Church  of  England  at  the  communion  service. 

t  This  distinction  between  the  fundamental  articles  of  faith,  and  other 
doctrines,  appears  very  conformable  to  the  notions  of  the  elegant  Melchior 
Canus.  His  words  are  these:  "  Qusedam  sunt  Catholicce  veri tales,  quae  ila 
ad  fidem  pertinent,  ut  his  sublatis,  fides  quoque  ipsa  tollatur.  Quas  nos  usu 
frequenti  non  solum  Catholicas,  sed  fidei  veritates  appellavimus.  Aliae 
veritates  sunt  ipsae  Catholicae  et  universalos,  nempe  quas  universa  ecclesia 
tenet,  quibus  licet  eversis,  fides  quatitur,  sed  non  evertitur  taraen.  Atque  in 
hujusmodi  veritatum  contrariis  erroribus,  dixi  fidem  obscurari,  non  extingui : 
infinnari,  non  pei-ire :  Has  ergo  nunquam  fidei  veritates  censui  vocandaa, 
quamvis  doctrinse  Christiance  veritates  sint."  Melch.  Can.  loc  Theol.  lib. 
12.  cap.  11. 


164 

the  Christian  religion."  On  this  assertion  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman builds  a  long  catalogue  of  ideal  absurdities.  But 
surely  he  did  not  reflect  that,  if  doctrines  take  place,  they 
must  necessarily  have  advocates ;  that  Christians  and 
Christian  doctrines  must  stand  or  fall  together.  Perhaps, 
when  he  comes  to  consider  further,  that  the  Chaplain  bor- 
rowed, nay,  copied  this  interpretation  of  the  text  from  the 
council  of  Trent,  he  will  regret  having  amused  himself 
and  his  readers,  at  the  manifest  expense  of  this  infallible 
assembly..  The  words  are  these,  *The  Council  "  has 
thought  fit,  that  the  symbol  of  faith  which  the  holy  Roman 
Church  uses,  as  that  principle,  in  which  all  who  profess 
the  faith  of  Christ  necessarily  agree  ;  and  the  firm  and 
only  foundation  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never 
prevail,  should  be  expressed  in  the  same  words,  in  which 
it  is  read  in  all  the  Churches."  This  passage,  the  Chap- 
lain trusts,  secures,  both  his  candour  and  accuracy  so  far 
in  this  matter,  as  to  render  any  further  vindication  of  either 
extremely  superfluous.  The  Roman  Catholic  will  hardly 
reject  an  apology  so  pointedly  drawn  from  the  council  of 
Trent. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  proceeds  next  to  examine  the  pro- 
mises of  Christ,  made  at  his  last  supper.  (John  xiv.  16. 
&;c.)  He  thinks  it  necessary  to  set  down  the  text  more 
fully  ;  to  which  the  Chaplain  can  have  no  objection,  as 
not  a  syllable  of  it  applies  to  infallibility.  Let  the  reader 
pronounce  upon  the  logic  of  these  inferences  :  "  I  will 
ask  my  Father  and  he  will  send  you  another  Comforter  to 
abide  with  you  for  ever;"  (Ibid.)  therefore  the  Roman 
Church  is  infallible.  *' The  Comforter,  whom  the  Father 
will  send  in  my  name,   he  shall  teach  you  all  things,  and 

*  Symbolum  fidei,  quo  S.  Ecclesia  Romana  utitur,  tanquam  priiicipium 
illud,  in  quo  omnes,  qui  fidera  Christi  profitentur,  necessario  conveniunt,  ac 
firmamentum  firmum  et  unicum,  contra  quod  portae  inferni  nunquarn  pre- 
valebunt,  totidem  verbis,  quibus  in  omnibus  eccleaiis  legitur,  expriraendum 
esse  censuit.    (Council.  Trid.  Sess.  3.) 


165 

bring  all  things  to  your  remembrance^  whatsoever  I  have 
said  unt©  you ;"  (v.  26  :)  therefore  the  Roman  Church  is 
infallible.  "  I  have  yet  many  things  to  say  unto  you  :  but 
you  cannot  hear  them  now  ;  however,  when  the  Spirit  of 
truth  is  come,  he  will  guide  you  into  all  truth  :"  (Ibid.  xvi. 
13  :)  therefore  the  Roman  Church  is  infallible.  The  ab- 
surdity of  these  conclusions  did  not  escape  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman's notice,  and  therefore  he  only  infers  from  these 
passages  "  the  perpetual  assistance  of  the  Divine  Spirit, 
teaching  and  leading  the  Apostles  and  their  successors, 
that  is,  the  body  of  pastors,  into  all  truth  necessary  and  re- 
lating to  the  service  of  God  and  salvation  of  man."  As 
the  Chaplain  had  expressed  this  very  idea  in  his  letter,  he 
may  be  allowed  to  waive  any  further  discussion  of  these 
texts,  and  to  repeat  his  hearty  accession  to  so  rational  a 
comment. 

The  words  of  Christ,  recorded  in  St.  Matthew,  (xxviii. 
20,)  "  Behold  I  am  with  you  always  even  unto  the  end  of 
the  world,"  to  be  any  wise  conclusive  for  the  cause  of  in- 
fallibility, must  suppose  first,  that  by  the  word  you  are 
meant  the  doctors  and  teachers  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  and 
they  only.  Now,  the  Rev.  gentleman  himself  disclaims 
this  supposition  ;  for  he  says  expressly,  that  "they  must  be 
the  successors  of  the  Apostles,  whose  line  of  succession  we 
can  trace  to  them.  This  done,  we  must  account  of  them 
as  the  ministers  of  Christ,  and  the  dispensers  of  the  myste- 
ries of  God,  (1  Cot.  iv.  1,)  from  whom  we  may  learn  cer- 
tainly the  truth  of  the  Gospel."  The  teachers  therefore  of 
the  Greek  and  Protestant  Churches,  who  can  trace  an  in- 
disputable succession  to  the  Apostles,  must  have  as  just  a 
claim  to  Christ's  promise,  as  the  teachers  and  prelates  of 
the  Church  of  Rome.  Secondly,  these  words  must  sup- 
pose, that  Christ  will  be  with  the  successors  of  the  Apos- 
tles not  only  to  keep  them  from  all  damnable  and  destruc- 
tive  errors,   but  absolutely   from  all  erroneous  doctrines 


166 

whatever ;  and  yet,  even  granting  all  this,  it  then  would 
follow,  if  the  promise  be  absolute,  that  not  only  the  whole 
Church  of  Rome,  not  only  a  general  council,  not  the  pope 
alone,  but  every  bishop,  every  priest,  every  person,  who  is 
sent  by  Christ  to  baptize  and  preach  the  Gospel,  might 
claim  this  assistance  by  virtue  of  his  words,  and  conse- 
quently be  infallible.  "  Now,  in  this  case,''''  says  Mr.  Chil- 
lingworth,  "  what  a  multitude  of  infallible  Churches  should 
we  have  /"  "  But,"  says  the  Rev.  gentlemen  :  "  All  truth, 
in  matters  of  faith  and  salvation,  into  which  the  Spirit  was 
to  lead  them,  is  exclusive  of  all  error,  in  the  same  line  :'' 
and  therefore  it  follows,  doubtless,  that  the  Spirit  can  never 
lead  the  Church  into  error.  But  can  we  infer  likewise, 
that  her  teachers  shall  never  hold  out  any  tenets  for  truth, 
besides  such  as  the  Holy  Spirit  has  delivered?  Or,  in 
other  words,  that  they  shall  never  build  wood,  hay,  and 
stubble  upon  the  foundations  of  truth  ?  Does  not  the  hete- 
rodoxy of  popes,  bishops,  and  councils,  which  is  upon  re- 
cord, demonstrate  that  this  may  possibly  be  the  case  ?  If 
a  person  be  led  into  every  geometrical  truth  relating  to 
trigonometry,  does  it  follow,  because  all  truth  in  this  line 
is  exclusive  of  all  error  in  the  same,  that  he  shall  never 
adopt  any  other  positions  that  may  confuse  his  ideas  and 
mislead  his  operations?  Had  our  Lord  assured  us,  that 
the  successors  of  his  Apostles  should  never  depart  one  tit- 
tle from  the  truths  of  religion,  nor  add  a  single  tenet  to  the 
holy  simplicity  of  his  doctrine  :  had  he  told  us  that  the 
Roman  pontiff,  his  councils  and  his  pastors,  should  be  se- 
cured from  every  kind  of  error  in  the  line  of  religion,  had 
he  ordered  us  in  all  our  doubts  and  difficulties  to  have  im- 
mediate recourse  to  the  Roman  Church  only,  as  an  infalli- 
ble tribunal  ;  then,  indeed,  would  it  have  been  rash  and 
impious  to  withstand  her  decisions.  But  the  ways  of  God 
are  not  the  ways  of  men,  and  it  would  be  the  highest  pre- 
sumption to  expect,  that  his  wisdom  should  ply  to  our  ap- 
parent convenience.    Perhaps  a  familiar  case  will  illustrate 


167 

this  whole  matter.  Let  us  suppose  that  the  Almighty  had 
promised  America,  at  the  commencement  of  her  late  glo- 
rious struggle,  to  guide  her  into  all  freedom^  and  that  the 
powers  of  Great  Britain  should  not  prevail  against  her. 
Could  any  thing  more  be  inferred  from  this  promise,  than 
that  the  attempts  of  her  enemies  should  be  baffled  in  the 
end,  and  that  all  the  essential  branches  of  liberty  should  be 
her's  ?  Her  provinces  might  be  ravaged,  her  inhabitants 
distressed,  her  armies  defeated.  She  might  at  times  stand 
trembling  upon  the  brink  of  destruction.  But  her  enemies, 
notwithstanding,  should  not  ultimately  succeed.  She 
should  still  retain  sufficient  strength  to  preserve  her  free- 
dom from  the  exertions  of  tyranny.  Even  this  freedom  itself 
might  at  times  be  impaired.  Its  principles  might  be  obscured 
in  some  State  of  the  Union,  while  they  shone  with  their 
original  lustre  in  others.  Ignorant  or  designing  men  might 
build  wood,  hay,  and  stubble,  upon  the  fundamental  rights 
of  election,  upon  trials  by  jury,  or  the  liberty  of  the  press. 
But  would  these  abuses  falsify  the  promises  of  the  Almigh- 
ty ?  Might  they  not  subsist  for  a  time  without  abolishing 
the  essentials  of  freedom,  to  which  perpetuity,  is  promised, 
and  which  of  course  would  remain  entire,  when  the  abuses 
that  obscured  them,  lie  buried  in  oblivion  ? 

To  break  the  enchantment  of  the  magic  circle,  in  which 
the  Chaplain  conceives  the  advocates  for  infallibility  to  be 
entangled,  the  Rev.  gentleman  shifts  the  general  ground  of 
the  argument,  and  endeavours  to  rear  his  system  upon 
other  foundations  than  what  the  Scriptures  supply.  "The 
Catholic  reader  has  but  to  open  his  eyes,"  says  he,  "  and 
he  will  discover  that  his  Church  is  in  the  practice  of  deter- 
mining controversies  of  faith,  by  the  concurrent  authority 
of  the  Episcopal  body.  The  Church,  even  from  the  Apos- 
tles' time,  has  always  exercised  this  authority — which  the 
primitive  Christians  considered  as  definite  and  infallible. 
Whoever  refused  submission  was  cast  from  the  Church  as  a 
heathen   and   publican.     On  these  grounds  will  the  Chris- 


168 

tian  be  induced  to  believe  her  infallibility — To  exercise 
such  a  right  (viz.  of  deciding  and  excommunicating)  with- 
out infallibility  would  be  vain  and  nugatory  :  therefore,  she 
is  infallible."  Here,  in  his  own  words,  is  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man's argument,  that  is  to  dissolve  the  charm  of  this  for- 
midable circle.  It  appears  plausible  at  first  sight,  but 
when  urged  for  infallibility,  is  like  applying  the  areas  of 
several  small  circles  to  ascertain  the  square  of  a  large  one. 
In  other  words,  it  is  nothing  more  than  solving  one  vicious 
circle  by  introducing  another.  For  it  is  only  in  supposi- 
tion that  this  infallibility  exists,  that  the  practice  of  the 
Church  can  be  alleged  to  evince  it.  The  Church  is  infal- 
lible, therefore  she  has  a  right  to  decide  upon  matters  of 
faith  :  She  has  a  right  to  decide  upon  matters  of  faith, 
therefore  she  is  infallible.  Will  such  reasoning  be  deemed 
sufficient  to  uphold  the  highest  privilege  ever  claimed  by 
mankind  ?  The  fact  is,  in  every  well  regulated  society, 
some  supreme  court  of  judicature  must  necessarily  be  es- 
tablished, in  order  to  terminate  finally  contentions  among 
individuals,  which  otherwise  would  for  ever  disturb  the 
peace  of  the  community  :  but  are  such  tribunals  on  this  ac- 
count to  be  deemed  infallible  1  It  is  true,  the  decisions 
concerning  truth  do  not  bear  a  strict  resemblance  to  those 
which  regard  our  temporal  interests.  The  first  must  never 
depart  an  iota  from  the  apparent  light  of  reason  and  reve- 
lation. The  second  may  be  modified  as  the  common  good 
requires.  But  in  both  cases  the  manner  of  judging  is  the 
same,  and  in  both  cases  may  the  decisions  of  men  be  mis- 
taken. Accordingly,  we  often  see,  when  one  supreme  tri- 
bunal has  been  compelled  to  yield  to  an  adverse  power,  its 
decrees  have  been  reversed,  and  others  enacted,  which  dur- 
ing the  prevalence  of  their  authors  are  as  binding  as  the 
first.  This  was  the  case  during  the  famous  disputes  con- 
cerning the  incarnation.  For  two  hundred  years  the  same 
opinions  were  successively  approved  and  condemned,  as 
their  abettors,  or  adversaries,  got  the  upper  hand.     It  was, 


169 

therefore,  thought  necessary  to  recur  to  some  supreme  au» 
thority,  in  order  to  prevent  disputes  from  becoming  per- 
petual. The  spirit  of  charity,  which  is  the  very  essence  of 
religion,  was  greatly  impaired  by  these  dreadful  quarrels, 
and  it  was  judged  a  less  dangerous  expedient  to  decide  de- 
finitely upon  these  several  questions,  than  to  suffer  Chris- 
tians to  tear  one  another  to  pieces  in  the  fury  of  contro- 
versy.  But  this  could  not  deprive  individuals  of  the  right 
of  judging  for  themselves  in  speculative  matters.  In  these 
cases,  reason  cannot  yield  to  human  authority  alone  ;  espe- 
cially when  it  is  known,  that  many  final  decisions  have 
been  discovered  at  last  disagreeing  with  truth.  This  made 
St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  declare,  "  that  he  was  never 
present  at  an  assembly  of  bishops,  which  did  not  increase 
the  evils  they  meant  to  remedy  ;  the  spirit  of  dispute  and 
ambition  always  prevailing  over  the  dictates  of  reason."* 
And  the  judicious  Turretin  adds,f  *'  that  if  any  man,  hav- 
ing read  the  acts  of  the  councils,  regard  them  as  infallible, 
a  physician  would  be  the  proper  person  to  undertake  his 
case." 

As  to  the  argument  drawn  from  the  right  and  practice  of 
excommunicating,  what  force  can  it  have  with  those  who 
laugh  at  infallibility?  They  would  say,  no  doubt,  that  this 
also  is  running  round  a  circle  ;  because  the  Church  not  be- 
ing infallible,  as  is  pretended,  her  practice  on  this  head 
is  rather  an  abuse  that  ought  to  be  reformed,  than  a  law 
of  obligation ;  that  nothing  is  more  dangerous,  and  less 
logical,  than  to  argue  from  matter  of  fact  to  matter  of  right; 
because  the  latter  must  first  be  established  before  the  former 
can  possibly  be  an  argument  for  its  justice.  Thus,  when 
several  popes  presumed  to  enforce  acts  of  jurisdiction,  in 
matters  merely  temporal,  to  the  prejudice  of  princes,  they 
were  withstood  as  so  many  usurpations,  and  abolished  as 

*  Carmen,  de  vita  sua. 

t  Qui  lectis  conciliorum  actist  ea  pro  errare  nesciishabucrit,  ad  medicos 
«blegandus  est.    Turret. 

P 


170 

tyrannical^  and  no  wise  competent  to  prescribe  agaiRSi 
right.  It  is  therefore  a  sign  of  a  weak  cause,  to  urge  the 
practice  of  excommunication  as  a  proof  of  infallibility,  since 
nothing  decisive  can  follow  from  it :  for,  even  supposing  it 
to  be  just  and  warrantable,  infallibility  would  not  follow 
from  it  as  a  necessary  consequence.  Excommunication 
has  often  been  employed  upon  very  trifling  occasions,  where 
articles  of  faith  were  no  wise  concerned.  This  was  the 
case  with  respect  to  the  celebration  of  Easter,  the  repeti- 
tion of  baptism,  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  the  affair  of  the 
three  chapters,  &;c.  where  each  excommunicating  party 
could  not  surely  challenge  the  privilege  of  being  infallible. 
This  act  of  Church  authority,  therefore,  when  properly 
exercised,  is  not  grounded  upon  infallibility,  but  solely 
upon  the  right,  which  all  communities  possess,  of  framing 
laws  and  regulations  for  their  own  well-being,  and  of  ex- 
cluding every  person  from  their  society,  who  refuses  to  sub- 
mit to  its  essential  ordinances.  Particular  Churches  have 
frequently  excommunicated  each  other,  without  the  least 
pretence  to  infallibility.  The  thunder  of  this  ecclesiastical 
artillery  was  echoed  for  ages  from  the  East  to  the  West, 
although  the  contest  was  chiefly  for  pre-eminence  and 
power.  Nothing  then  can  be  less  satisfactory,  than  the  ar- 
gument drawn  from  the  practice  of  excommunication,  a 
penalty  often  inflicted  without  necessity  and  justice;  fre- 
quently at  the  expense  of  reason  and  truth  ;  and  conse- 
quently but  ill  calculated  to  uphold  the  highest  privilege 
ever  claimed  among  men. 

The  Chaplain,  therefore,  although  he  believes  the  infal- 
libility of  Scripture,  has  reason  to  insist  upon  this  hack- 
neyed argument;  for,  "  the  Roman  Catholic  must  believe 
his  Church  infallible,  because  she  teaches,  by  an  infallible 
authority,  that  many  texts  of  Scripture  prove  her  to  be  so." 
Here  is  the  magic  round,  in  which  the  advocates  for  this 
system  must  continue  to  move  until  delivered  by  reasons 
yet  undiscovered. 


171 

With  respect  to  the  other  hackneyed  argument  mentioned 
by  the  Chaplain,  the  Rev.  gentleman  thinks  it  "  really 
matter  of  astonishment,  that  he  also  should  insist  upon  it." 
The  reader  is  requested  to  turn  to  the  note,  and  if  he  there 
find  any  matter  of  astonishment^  this  sentiment  must  be 
easily  wakened  in  his  mind.  Where  is  the  great  mistake 
in  asserting,  "  that  some  divines  place  infallibility  only  in 
the  pope  and  council  received  by  the  whole  Church?"  Are 
they  not  negatively  distinguished,  by  this  opinion,  from 
those  who  plead  for  the  infallibility  of  the  pope  alone,  or  in 
conjunction  with  a  council?  The  Chaplain  never  meant  to 
deny,  that  all  Roman  Catholics  profess  to  believe  that  in- 
fallibility resides  in  the  pope  and  council  received  by  the 
whole  Church,  but  he  maintains  that  they  who  make  it  con- 
sist in  this  only  must  differ  in  their  notions  upon  the  con- 
stituents of  this  prerogative  from  those  who  attribute  it  to 
each  separate  branch.  This  is  all  the  matter  of  astonish- 
ment^ which  can  possibly  be  collected  from  the  Chaplain's 
words.  He,  indeed,  has  ample  room  for  astonishment,  when 
he  hears  the  Rev.  gentleman  denying  it  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  his  Church,  "that  a  council  can  decree  nothing  without 
the  assent  of  the  pope;  that  he  alone  has  a  right  to  inter- 
pret the  council,  and  explain  its  decisions;  and  that  those 
tenets  only  are  oi faith,  which  he  determines  to  be  so."  If 
these  be  not  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church,  "  the 
Chaplain  has  indeed  erased  from  his  memory,"  among  other 
learned  lumber,  "  the  theological  principles  of  her  schools." 
For  he  will  declare  upon  his  honour,  that  he  thus  under- 
stood the  doctrines  on  this  head  delivered  in  the  lectures, 
which  he  attended  :  and  he  trusts,  his  honour,  even  "  after 
discarding  his  former  prejudices,  is  as  sacred  as  theirs,  who 
choose  still  to  uphold  them."  The  explicit  hint  at  gross 
ignorance,  or  wilful  misrepresentation,  thrown  out  in  this 
place,  makes  the  reader's  further  indulgence  necessary, 
while  this  matter  is  cleared  up.  Let  the  Rev.  gentleman 
inform  us  whether  a  council  can  make  decrees  in  matters 


172 

of  faith,  without  the  assent  of  the  pope.  If  so,  what  becomes 
of  the  infallibility  arising  from  their  mutual  agreement,  and 
the  consent  of  the  Church?  If,  according  to  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman, infallibility  "reside  in  the  body  of  bishops  united 
and  agreeing  with  their  head,  the  bishop  of  Rome,"  how 
can  a  council  of  these  bishops  give  a  sanction  to  tenets,  to 
which  their  head  declares  his  dissent?  Will  any  Roman 
Catholic  school  allow  a  council  to  be  oecumenical,  or  its 
decrees  to  be  of  faith,  if  the  pope  do  not  preside  personally, 
or  by  his  legates,  and  confirm  its  decisions  ?  The  Rev.  gen- 
tleman denies,  moreover,  "  that  the  pope  alone  has  a  right 
to  interpret  the  council,  and  that  such  interpretations  only 
are  of  faith;  the  bishops,  also,"  says  he,  "claim  a  divine 
right  to  this  privilege."  But  let  him  tell  us,  if  their  in- 
terpretations be  of  faith.  If  so,  then  is  every  bishopric  an 
infallible  Church  :  if  not,  then  has  the  pope  only  a  right 
to  pronounce  on  them  with  definitive  authority.  Let  the 
practice  of  the  Roman  Church  in  this  particular  illustrate 
her  belief.  Whenever  disputes  arose  among  Roman  Ca- 
tholic divines,  or  universities,  was  not  the  sovereign  pontiff 
always  appealed  to,  to  settle  them?  In  the  fierce  and  fa- 
mous contests  de  auxilliis,  or  of  grace,  between  the  Moli- 
nists  and  the  Thomists,  did  not  each  party  continually  ap- 
peal to  the  pope?  And  had  he  judged  it  prudent  to  decide 
upon  the  matter,  would  not  a  rejection  of  his  decisions  have 
been  deemed  heretical,  and  treated  as  such?  Did  not  the 
Jansenists  repeatedly  allege  the  authority  of  the  Fathers 
and  Councils  to  support  the  five  positions  of  the  Bishop  of 
Ypres;  and  yet  the  Rev.  gentleman  must  regard  them  as 
heretical,  and  their  opposite  truths  to  be  of  faitli,  since  the 
sentence  passed  on  them  by  the  Roman  see.*     Why  are 

*  The  inquisitive  reader  will  not  perhaps  be  displeased  with  a  short  ac- 
count of  a  fanatical  system  of  divinity,  which  for  near  a  century  agitated  the 
kingdom  of  France.  It  called  forth  all  the  airy  humour,  all  the  powers  of 
latire,  all  the  profound  erudition  of  this  elegant  nation.  Princes  and  bishops, 
frian  and  poets,  divines  and  ladies,  eagerly  engaged  in  the  mighty  contest; 


173 

long  catalogues  of  propositions,  which  are  condemned  by 
the  pope,  inserted  in  all  books  of  casuistry,  and  laid  down 
as  so  many  acknowledged  errors  against  faith  and  morals? 
This  surely  alone,  is  sufficient  to  authorize  the  Chaplain's 
assertion,  "  that  the  pope  only  has  a  right  to  interpret  coun- 
cils; in  order  to  determine  what  tenets  are  of  faith."  He 
therefore,  alone,  must  be  the  ultimate  depository  of  infalli- 
bility. When  he  speaks  ex  cathedra,  as  it  is  called,  his 
oracles  must  command  submission  from  his  adherents  :  and 


while,  to  an  impartial  bystander,  it  was  a  matter  of  doubt  whether  the  ob- 
ject of  contention  was  not  a  mere  phantom  at  last.  About  the  year  1630. 
Cornelius  Jansanius  and  John  Verger,  commonly  called  Abbe  de  St.  Cyran, 
contracted  a  close  friendship,  and  concerted  a  new  plan  of  doctrine  concern- 
ing divine  grace,  founded  in  part  upon  the  opinions  of  Michael  Baius,  of  the 
university  of  Lovain.  This  system,  Jansenius,  by  his  friend's  advice,  en- 
deavoured to  establish  in  a  book,  which,  from  St.  Augustin,  he  entitled  Au- 
gustinus.  After  being  bishop  of  Ypres  from  1635  to  1638,  he  died  of  the 
pestilence,  leaving  his  book  in  manuscript  only  ;  vvhich,  however,  was  given 
10  the  public  after,  by  Fromondus,  a  learned  Lovanian  divine.  This  book 
of  Jansenius  was  condemned  by  Urban  VIII.  in  1641,  and  in  1658  Innocent 
X.  censured  five  propositions,  to  which  he  conceived  the  errors  of  this  work 
were  principally  reduced.  This  was  the  signal  for  the  combat,  and  hosts  of 
zealous  heroes  sprang  up  on  every  side.  "  The  principal  errors  contained  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Jansenists,"  says  the  learned  Butler,  in  his  Life  of  Vin- 
cent of  Paul,  "  are,  that  God  sometimes  refuses,  even  to  the  just,  sufficient 
grace  to  comply  with  his  precepts ;  that  the  grace  which  God  affords  man 
since  the  fall  of  Adam,  is  such,  that  if  concupiscence  be  stronger,  it  cannot 
produce  its  effect ;  but  if  the  grace  be  more  powerful  or  victorious,  by  a  ne- 
cessitating influence,  that  then  it  cannot  be  resisted,  rejected,  or  hindered  ; 
and  that  Christ  by  his  death  paid,  indeed,  a  sufficient  price  for  the  redemp- 
tion of  all  men,  and  offered  it  to  purchase  some  weak,  insufficient  grace  for 
reprobate  souls,  but  not  to  procure  them  means  truly  applicable,  and  suffi- 
cient for  their  salvation.  The  main  spring  or  hinge  of  this  system  is,  that  the 
grace,  which  inclines  man's  will  to  supernatural  virtue,  since  the  fall  of 
Adam,  consists  in  a  moral,  pleasurable  motion,  or  a  delectation  infused  into 
the  soul,  inclining  her  to  virtue,  as  concupiscence  carries  her  to  vice ;  and 
that  the  power  of  delectation,  whether  of  virtue  or  vice,  which  is  strongest, 
draws  the  will  by  an  inevitable  necessity,  as  it  were  by  its  own  weight." 
To  support,  explain,  modify,  reject,  and  impugn  such  absurdities  as  these,  an 
enlightened  and  poli.shed  nation  was  convulsed  for  near  a  century,  exhibiting 
a  moat  contemptible  picture  to  every  thinking  man,  of  systems,  and  system 
makers. 

p2 


174 

yet  the  reader  may  possibly  mistake  the  meaning  of  his  de- 
crees, full  as  readily  as  some  essential  passage  of  the  Bible ; 
unless,  indeed,  with  infallibility,  the  gift  o( perspicuity  a\so 
be  communicated  to  him  in  a  higher  degree  than  to  the 
word  of  God.  As  to  the  maxims  and  solemn  declarations  of 
the  Gallican  clergy,  they  must  first  be  proved  consistent, 
before  they  can  have  weight.  It  was  a  just  remark  of  the 
celebrated  Archbishop  Wake,  that  "  the  English  prelates, 
by  renouncing  all  dependence  on  the  Roman  pontift',  exhi- 
bited a  degree  of  consistency  and  candour  not  to  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  professions  and  conduct  of  the  bishops  of 
France."     (Append,  to  Mosheim's  Church  History.) 

The  Chaplain's  second  consideration  on  the  plea  of  infalli- 
bility^ which  was  meant  only  to  evince  "  that  the  Roman 
Church  regards  some  doctrines  at  present  as  articles  of 
faith,  which  for  many  ages  were  debated  as  matters  of 
opinion,"  is  not  fairly  stated  by  the  Rev.  gentleman.  It 
is  there  said,  "  that  at  some  periods  of  time  several  doc- 
trines were  defined  as  belonging  to  faith,  which  at  others 
were  debated  as  matters  of  opinion."  He  instances  the 
opinion  of  the  Millenarians  to  prove  this  assertion.  Is  this 
to  "  allege  that  the  Church  formerly  taught  doctrines  as  of 
faith,  which  she  now  rejects  as  contrary  to  faith?"  "Be- 
cause this  doctrine  was  maintained  as  an  article  of  univer- 
sal belief,  or  of  Catholic  faith,  by  almost  every  father,  who 
lived  immediately  after  the  times  of  the  Apostles,''^  does  it 
follow  that  the  Catholic  Church  defined  it  as  an  article  of 
communion  ?  For  some  ages  previous  to  the  reformation, 
we  do  not  meet  with  a  divine  of  any  eminence,  except 
Thomas  Aquinas,  who  was  not  a  zealous  advocate  for  the 
doctrine  o(  persecution ;  and  yet  the  Rev.  gentleman  will 
hardly  allow  it  to  be  an  article  of  Catholic  communion* 
The  truth  is,  without  the  intervention  any  solemn  decree, 
the  doctrine  of  a  millennium  was  an  article  of  Catholic  belief ; 
and,  therefore,  if  the  Church  fail  principally  by  erring,  she 
certainly  must  have  failed,  when  neaily  all  her  teachers 


175 

were  involved  in  an  error,  which  has  since  been  deemed 
capital.  At  any  rate  the  Rev.  gentleman  must  confess, 
that  the  doctrine  of  admission  to  happiness,  or  of  condemna' 
tion  to  punishment  immediately  after  death,  is  now  defined 
as  belonging  to  faith,  which  was  formerly  debated  as  a 
matter  of  opinion,  and  rejected  by  almost  all  the  ancient 
fathers.  This  is  all  the  Chaplain  meant  to  advance  as  the 
ground  of  his  argument.  This  is  all,  that  either  accuracy 
or  candour  calls  upon  him  to  maintain.  It  was  never  his 
intention  to  investigate  the  merits  of  auricular  confession, 
of  purgatory,  transubstantiation.  or  any  other  tenet  of  the 
Roman  Church.  He  merely  advanced,  and  clearly  showed, 
"  that  these  and  some  other  doctrines  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  that  at  some  periods  of  time  they 
passed  for  opinions  only."  Until  these  assertions  be  con- 
futed, the  Chaplain  stands  acquitted  of  disingenuity  and 
mistake  ;  even  allowing  that  the  Rev.  gentleman's  argu- 
ments, through  thirty-six  pages  of  his  address,  have  proved 
satisfactory  in  establishing  these  doctrines.  Without  lead- 
ing the  reader  through  all  the  beaten  paths  of  the  province 
of  controversy,  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  travels  over  in 
this  part  of  his  address,  the  Chaplain  wishes  only  to  detain 
him  at  those  passages  which  are  intended  to  do  away  the 
above  mentioned  assertions. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  begins  with  transubstantiation, 
which  the  Chaplain  asserts  "  was  no  article  of  faith  prior 
to  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215."  Scotus,  who  was 
styled  the  subtile  doctor,  and  has  ever  been  regarded  as  a 
prodigy  among  the  schoolmen,  maintains  this  to  be  the 
case.  But,  say  Bellarmine  and  (he  Rev.  gentleman,  Scotus 
was  mistaken.  Although  he  died  in  1308,  he  knew  no- 
thing of  the  councils  which  established  this  doctrine,  and 
yet  the  first  that  did  so,  was  held  in  1060,  or  rather  1050, 
under  Leo  IX.  During  two  centuries  and  a  half,  the 
opinion  of  Berenger  was  echoed  through  Europe,  and  had 
innumerable  adherents;  yet  Scotus,  who  lived  at  the  conclu- 


176 

sion  of  this  period,  had  never  heard  of  the  councils  that 
condemned  him.  Will  the  impartial  reader  acquiesce  in 
improbabilities  like  these?  The  Chaplain  goes  on,  "It 
was  towards  the  beginning  of  the  ninth  century,  that  Pas- 
chasius  Radbertus  published  his  treatise  upon  the  corporal 
presence  of  Christ  in  the  Eucharist,  and  as  Bellarmine  tells 
us,  was  the  first  who  wrote  seriously  and  copiously  concern- 
ing it."  The  words  of  the  learned  cardinal,  which  imme- 
diately follow  "  against  Bertram  the  priest,  who  was  among 
the  first  that  called  it  in  question,"  are  omitted  by  the 
Chaplain  ;  and  this  omission  is  held  up  as  a  striking  in- 
stance of  his  deficiency  in  point  of  accurate  and  impartial 
investigation.  No  censure  in  the  Address  surprised  him 
more  than  this.  If  the  reader  have  been  two  years  at  a 
Latin  school,  let  him  construe  fairly  the  following  sen- 
tence. "  Hie  auctor  primus  fuit,  qui  serio  et  copiose  scrip- 
sit  de  veritate  corporis  et  sanguinis  domini  in  Eucharistia, 
contraBertramumPresbyterum,  qui  fuit  ex  primis,qui  earn  in 
dubium  revocarunt.*"  Now,  if  he  can  make  out  from  this 
sentence,  or  the  latter  part  of  it,  that  Paschasius  was  only 
the  first  who  wrote  "  seriously  and  copiously  against  Ber- 
tram ;"  and  not  the  first  who  wrote  "  seriously  and  copious- 
ly concerning  the  body  and  blood  of  the  Lord  in  the  Eu- 
charist," he  must  have  mispent  his  time  egregiously,  or 
possess  a  happy  talent  at  distorting  the  obvious  meaning  of 
words.  But  another  learned  Jesuit  shall  clear  his  brother 
Bellarmine  from  obscurity  in  this  instance,  and  the  Chap- 
lain from  the  censure  of  ignorance  or  design.  These  are 
the  words  of  Father  Sirmondus,  in  his  life  of  Paschasius. 
"  Genuinum  ecclesias  Catholica?  sensum  ita  primus  expli- 
cuit,  ut  viam  caeteris  aperuerit,  qui  de  eodem  argumento 
multi  postea  scripsere."  He  was  the  first,  who  explained 
the  true  sense  of  the  Catholic  Church  in  such  a  manner,  as 

*  Bell,  de  Scrip.  Eccl.  p.  266. 


177 

to  open  the  way  to  many  others,  who  wrote  afterwards  on 
the  same  subject. 

But  to  proceed  :  "  Paschasius  himself  informs  us,"  says 
the  Chaplain,  "  that  this  doctrine  was  by  no  means  univer- 
sal or  settled."  The  Rev.  gentleman  styles  this  a  most 
unfortunate  reference^  and  boldly  rejects  the  citation  itself. 
The  Chaplain  has  not  by  him  the  original  epistle  of  Pascha- 
sius  to  Frudegard,  but  he  finds  his  words  cited  by  the  accu- 
rate Usher,  in  a  manner  that  admits  not  a  doubt  of  their 
authenticity.*  "  You  question  me,"  says  he,  "  upon  a  sub- 
ject, about  which  many  are  doubtful."  And  again,  "al- 
though many  hence  be  doubtful,  how  he  remains  entire, 
and  this  can  be  theb  ody  and  blood  of  Christ."  If  these  two 
passages  be  genuine,  and  they  must  be  so,  unless  Usher 
foisted  them  into  the  letter,  it  follows,  that  Paschasius  is 
guilty  of  a  palpable  contradiction,  or  in  the  heat  of  contro- 
versy, as  is  often  the  case,  compliments  his  own  particular 
notions  as  Catholic  truths^  or  that  the  words  quoted  by 
Usher  are  omitted  in  the  edition  which  the  Rev.  gentleman 
consulted.  The  plausibility  of  this  conjecture  will  shortly 
appear,  when  the  treatment  of  some  of  his  cotemporary  wri- 
ters on  this  very  subject  comes  to  be  mentioned. 

The  passage  quoted  by  the  Cliaplain  from  Rabanus 
Maurus,  in  his  letter  to  Heribald,  is  not  rejected  by  the 
Rev.  gentleman,  "  because  he  has  not  this  epistle,  nor  is 
able  to  procure  it;  he  suspects,  however,  that  it  is  copied 
from  the  Huguenot  Alhertinus,  whose  mistakes  have  a 
great  ajinity  with  those  of  the  Chaplain.'''^  But  this  very 
passage  shall  shift  the  weighty  imputation  from  the  Hugue- 
not and  the  Chaplain,  to  a  quarter,  where  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man little  suspects  it  can  belong.  Let  the  reader  peruse 
the  following  words  of  the  most  diligent,  as  well  as  the 

* '■'•  QacBris  enim  de  re.  ex  qua  mulli  dubilant."....Quamvis  multi  ex  hoc 
dubUent,  quomodo  ilLe.  integer  manet,  et  hoc  corpus  Christi  et  sanguis  esse 
possU.  Pasch.  Epist.  ad  Frud.  citat  ab  Usher,  p.  77.  Answer  to  a  Chah 
lenge,  ^c. 


178 

most  successful  searcher  into  antiquity,  and  then  pronounce 
upon  this  additional  instance  of  the  Chaplain's  inaccuracy. 
"In  the  year  1616,"  says  Archbishop  Usher,*  "  a  tome  of 
ancient  writers,  that  never  saw  the  light  before,  was  set 
forth  at  Ingolstat,  by  Petrus  Stuartius  ;  where,  among  other 
treatises,  a  certain  Penitential^  written  by  Rabanus,  that 
famous  Archbishop  of  Mentz,  is  to  be  seen.  In  the  33d 
chapter  of  that  book,  Rabanus  making  answer  to  an  idle 
question  moved  by  bishop  Hcribaldus,  concerning  the  Eu- 
charist, (what  should  become  of  it  after  it  ivas  consumed, 
and  sent  into  the  draught,  after  the  manner  of  other  meats,) 
hath  these  words,  (initio  pag.  669.)  '  Nam  quidam  nuper 
de  ipso  Sacramento  corporis  &  sanguinis  domini  non  rite 
sentientes,  dixerunt :  hoc  ipsum  corpus  et  sanguinem  do- 
mini, quod  de  Maria  virgine  natum  est  et  in  quo  ipse  domi- 
nus  passus  est  in  cruce,  et  resurrexit  de  sepulchro.  Cui 
errori  quantum  potuimus,  ad  Egilum  abbatem  scribentes, 
de  corpore  ipso  quid  vere  credendum  sit  aperuimus.'  For 
some,  of  late,  not  holding  rightly  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  the  Lord,  have  said,  that  the  very  body 
and  blood  of  our  Lord,  which  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
and  in  which  our  Lord  himself  suffered  on  the  cross,  and 
rose  again  from  the  g'rave.  Against  which  error,  writing 
to  abbot  Egilus,  according  to  our  ability,  we  have  declared, 
what  is  truly  to  be  believed  concerning  CJirist's  body.  You 
see  Rabanus'  tongue  is  dipt  here  for  telling  tales;  but  how 
this  came  to  pass  is  worth  the  learning.  Stuartius  frees  him- 
self from  the  fact,  telling  us  in  the  margin,  that  "  here  there 
was  a  blank  in  the  manuscript  copy;"f  and  we  do  easily  be- 
lieve him;  for  Possevine,  the  Jesuit,  hath  given  us  to  un- 
derstand, that  manuscript  books  also  are  to  be  purged,  as 
well  as  printed.:}:  But  whence  was  this  manuscript  fetched, 
think  you  ?     "  Out  of  the  famous  monastery  of  Weingart ;" 


*  Answer  to  a  Challenge,  p.  17,   t  Lacuna  hie  est  in  MS.  exemplari. 
\  Ad  isios  quoque purgalio  pertinet.     Lib.  1.  Bib.  Select,  cap.  13. 


175 

saith  Stuartius.*  The  monks  of  Wiengart  then,  belikej 
must  answer  the  matter  :  and  they,  I  dare  say,  upon  exami- 
nation, will  take  their  oaths,  that  it  was  no  part  of  their  in- 
tention to  give  any  furtherance  to  the  cause  of  Protestants 
hereby.  If  hereunto  we  add,  that  Ueribaldus  and  Rabanus 
are  both  ranked  among  heretics,  by  Thomas  Walden,t  for 
holding  the  Eucharist  to  be  subject  to  digestion  and  void- 
ance,  like  other  meats  ;  the  suspicion  will  be  more  vehe- 
ment, whereunto  I  will  adjoin  one  evidence  more,  that 
shall  leave  the  matter  past  suspicion.  In  the  libraries  of 
ray  worthy  friends.  Sir  Rob.  Cotton,  (that  noble  baronet  so 
renowned  for  his  great  care  in  collecting  and  preserving  all 
antiquities,)  and  Dr.  Ward,  the  learned  master  of  Sidney 
College,  in  Cambridge,  I  met  with  an  ancient  treatise  of 
the  sacrament,  beginning  thus  :  '  Sicut  ante  nos  quidam  sa^ 
piens  dixit,  cujus  sententiam  probamus,  licet  nomen  igno- 
remus  ;'  which  is  the  same  with  that  in  the  Jesuits' college 
at  Lovain,  blindly  fathered  upon  Berengarius.ij:  The  author 
of  this  treatise,  having  first  twitted  Heribaldus  for  propound- 
ing, and  Rabanus  for  lesolving,  this  question  of  the  void- 
ance  of  the  Eucharist,  layeth  down  afterwards  the  opinion 
of  Paschasius  Radbertus,  whose  writing  is  still  extant. 
'  Contra  quem,'  says  he,  '  satis  argumentatur  et  Rabanus  in 
epistola  ad  Egilonem  abbatem,  et  Ratramus  quidam  libro 
composite  ad  Carolum  regem,  dicentes  (camera  Christi) 
aliam  esse.'  Against  whom  both  Rabanus,  in  his  epistle  to 
abbot  Egilo,  and  one  Ratramus,  in  a  book  which  he  made 
to  king  Charles,  argue  largely  ;  saying,  it.  is  another  kind  of 
flesh.  Whereby,  what  Rabanus'  opinion  was  of  this  point, 
in  his  epistle  to  abbot  Egilo,  or  Egilus,  and,  consequently, 
what  that  was  which  the  monks  of  Weingart  could  not  en- 
dure in  his  penitential,  I  trust,  is  plain  enough." 

*  Ex  MS.  cod  celeherrimi  monasterii  Weingartensis.  t  Walden's  Tom.  1. 
doctrinal,  in  prolog,  ad  Martinum  V.  Id.  Torn.  2  cap.  19,  et  61.  t  Ant.  Posse- 
vin.  Apparat.  sacr.  in  Bereng.  Turon. 


180 

The  Rev.  gentleman  must  be  seriously  concerned  for  the 
orthodoxy  of  Bertram,  who  was  employed  by  Charles  the 
Bald  to  oppose  Paschasius,  when,  in  contradiction  to  Bel- 
larmine,  Turrianus,  and  other  eminent  divines,  he  adopts 
his  vindication  penned  by  the  flimsy  author  of  the  history 
of  the  Whippers.*     Bertram,  we  are  told,  plainly  asserts 
"in  many  passages  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion."     The  Rev.  gentleman  sets  down  but  one,  which  is 
probably  the  most  explicit.     *' The  bread,"  says  he,  "is 
changed  into  the  body  of  Christ  by  the  significancy  of  the 
sacred   mystery,   by   the   invisible   operation  of  the   Holy 
Ghost.     Whence   they  are  called  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,"  &c.     It  requires  a  happy  talent  to  make  out  tran- 
substa?itiafion  from  these  words.     They  appear  manifestly 
to  mean,  if,  indeed,  they  mean  any  thing,  that  in  the  holy 
mystery    bread   and   wine  signify  the  body  and  blood  of 
Christ,  and  are  called  so  from  the  invisible  hallowing  of 
these  elements.     Here  is  the  sound  Protestant  doctrine, 
which  made  Turrianus  confess,  "  that  to  cite  Bertram,  was 
no  more  than  to  declare  that  the  heresy  of  Calvin  is  not 
new."t     But,  to  clear  the  sentiments  of  this  writer  from 
every  shadow  of  doubt,  let  the  reader  be  informed,  that  the 
book  which  he  wrote  to  Charles  the  Bald,  contains,  among 
others,  these  remarkable  passages,  of  which  the  Latin  ori- 
ginal  is  now  before  the  Chaplain.     "  Your  Excellency  and 
Grandeur  inquires,"  says  he,  "  whether  the  body  and  blood 
of  Christ,  which  is  received  by  the  mouth  of  the  faithful  in 
the  Church,  be  celebrated  in  a  mystery  or  in  truth  ;  and  whe- 
ther it  be  the  same  body  which  was  born  of  Mary,  which 
did  suffer,  was  dead  and  buried  ;  and  which,  rising  again 
and  ascending  into  heaven,  sitteth  at  the  right  hand  of  the 

•  Whoever  has  read  the  Historia  Flagellantium,  by  the  Abbe  Boileau,  or 
another  of  his  indecent  productions,  will  sooner  allow  him  any  appellation, 
than  that  of  a  judicious  and  solid  historian. 

t  Franc.  Turrianus  de  Euchar.  contra  Volanum  lib.  1.  cap.  22. 


181 

Father  ?''*  To  this  question  he  makes  answer,  "  that  the 
bread  and  the  wine  are  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  figura- 
tively."f  That  "  according  to  the  substance  of  the  crea- 
tures, that  which  they  were  before  consecration,  the  same 
also  are  they  afterwards  t''^:  That  "  they  are  called  the 
Lord's  body  and  blood,  because  they  take  the  name  of  that 
thing  of  which  they  are  a  sacrament  :"§  That  "  there  is  a 
great  difference  between  the  mystery  of  the  blood  and  body 
of  Christ  which  is  taken  now  by  the  faithful  in  the  Church, 
and  that  which  was  born  of  the  virgin  Mary,  which  suffer- 
ed, which  was  buried,  which  rose  again,  which  sitteth  at 
the  right  hand  of  the  Father."]!  Could  the  emperor,  who 
proposed  his  doubts  upon  this  subject,  or  the  writer  who 
thus  solves  them,  believe  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  transiih- 
stantiation  ?  The  Chaplain  might  father  it  with  equal  pro- 
priety upon  archbishop  Tillotson,  or  the  Huguenot  Alberti- 
nus.  That  Bertram  wrote  this  treatise  at  the  emperor's  re- 
quest, is  evident  from  the  first  of  these  passages ;  and  it 
is  equally  certain  that,  had  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion  been  notorious  and  universal,  that  prince,  as  a  good 
Catholic,  would  have  been  shocked  and  displeased  at  Ber- 
tram for  opposing  it.  The  indefatigable  Dr.  Priestly,  speak- 
ing of  Paschasius  and  his  tenets,  tells  us,^  that,  "  among 
others,  the  emperor  Charles  the  Bald,  was  much  offended 
at  it,  and,  by  his  paiticular  order,  the  famous  Bertram  or 
Rattram  wrote  against  the  new  opinion  of  Paschasius." 

One  word  more  of  Bertram,  and  the  Chaplain  will  dis- 
miss him:  not,  indeed,  without  some  reluctance,  for  he  has 
stood  forth  an  able  advocate  for  his  accuracy  on  this  occa- 
sion. His  book  upon  this  subject  was  deemed  so  inimical 
to  transubstantiation,  that  the  Roman  inquisition  forbade  it 
to  be  read.     But  the  university  of  Doway,  perceiving  that 

*  Bertram,  in  lib.de  corp.  etsang.  Dom.  edit.  Colon. ann.  I55I,  p.  180. 
tlbid.  p.  183.    tlbid.  p.  205.    $  Ibid.  p.  200.    ||  Ibid.  p.  222. 
If  History  of  Opinions  relating  to  the  Lord's  Supper,  p.  39. 


182 

the  prohibition  served  only  to  excite  the  public  curiosity, 
thought  it  more  advisable  to  publish  the  book,  after  prun- 
ing away  the  exuberance  of  some  exceptionable  passages.* 
*'  Since,"  say  they,  "  we  bear  with  many  errors  in  other 
ancient  Catholic  writers,  since  we  extenuate  and  excuse, 
and,  by  frequently  inventing  some  comment,  deny  them, 
and  annex  some  convenient  sense  to  them,  when  they  are 
objected  in  disputes  and  contests  with  our  adversaries ;  we 
do  not  see  why  Bertram  may  not  deserve  the  same  justice 
and  diligent  revisal,  lest  the  heretics  cry  out,  that  we  burn 
and  forbid  such  antiquity  as  makes  for  them."  Accord- 
ingly, all  the  arguments  of  this  writer,  which  prove,  that 
what  the  faithful  receive  in  the  sacrament  is  not  the  body 
of  Christ,  that  died  upon  the  cross  and  rose  again  from 
death,  are  ordered  to  be  omitted. f  Here  is  another  in- 
stance  of  unprincipled  censure,  that  should  for  ever  silence 
the  charge  of  gross  misrepresentation  and  unfair  quotations 
being  alleged  against  Protestants. 

The  Chaplain  is  accused,  in  the  next  place,  of  a  palpable 
anachronism  and  want  of  attention  in  mistaking  the  era  of 
the  obscure  bishop  who  first  invented  the  word  transubstan- 
tiation.  The  Rev.  gentleman  asserts  that  he  lived  about 
the  year  950,  and  not  in  the  twelfth  century.  The  learned 
Bellarmine,  however,  speaks  less  positively  of  this  fact:  "J/e 
is  said  to  have  flourished  about  the  year  950. "J     And  the 

*  Quum  in  Catholicis  veteribus  aliis  plurimos  feramus  errores  et  extenue- 
mus,  excusemus,  excogitate  commento  persaepe  negemus  el  commodum  iis 
sensum  affingamus  dum  opponuntur  in  disputalionibus  aut  in  conflictionibus 
rum  adversariis  :  non  videmus  cur  non  eandem  aequitatem  et  diligentem  re- 
cognitionem  mereatur  Bertramus :  ne  haeretici  ogganniant  nos  antiqnitatem 
pro  ipsis  facientem  cxurere  et  prohibere.  Index  Expurg.  Belg.  page  5.  edit. 
Antwerp,  ann.  1571. 

t  Nou  male  aut  inconsulte  omittantur  igitur  omnia  haec.  Ibid.  The  learned 
Richer,  syndic  of  the  theological  faculty  of  Paris,  tells  us,  Council.  General. 
lib.  4.  par.  2,  "That  the  court  of  Rome  suppresses  and  abolishes  all  those 
acts  which  contradict  its  usurped  rights  ;  and  hence  it  is  that  many  spurious 
things  are  read  as  genuine,  even  in  ancient  councils." 

X  Dicitur  autera  floruisse  anno  Dom.  950.    De  Scrip.  Eccl.  p.  276. 


183 

celebrated  Dr.  Priestly,  whose  chronological  accuracy 
stands  so  high  at  present,  tells  us,  that  "  the  term,  transub- 
stantiation  was  first  used  by  Stephen,  Bishop  of  Autun,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century."^  He  says,  more- 
over, "  that  he  was  cotemporary  with  Peter  Lombard  ;"-|' 
who,  according  to  Bellarmine,  flourished  in  the  year  1145. :(: 
Many  eminent  divines  are  of  the  same  opinion  with  the 
Huguenot  Albertinus,  whose  authority  is  at  any  time  upon 
a  level  with  that  of  the  Jansenist  Nicole. § 

This  unmerited  censure  of  inaccuracy  being  done  away, 
the  Chaplain  does  not  consider  a  regular  attendance  upon 
the  Rev.  gentleman  through  the  nine  ensuing  pages  of  his 
address  to  be  any  wise  material.  They  contain  nothing  but 
historical  facts,  which  he  means  not  to  controvert.  For 
upwards  of  two  hundred  years  of  the  most  deplorable  ignor- 
ance and  depravity  of  manners  that  ever  disgraced  the  an- 
nals of  mankind,  the  doctrine  first  broached  by  Paschasius, 
had  ample  leisure  to  spread  itself  through  the  Churches  of 
Christendom.  The  dark  genius  of  superstition  snatched 
eagerly  at  a  tenet  which  came  recommended  by  all  the  ex- 
travagance of  mystery ;  and,  having  nothing  to  apprehend 
from  the  hostile  light  of  philosophy  and  science,  played  it 
off  with  success  upon  the  credulity  of  some,  and  the  pas- 
sions of  others.  Towards  the  middle  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury, it  appears  to  have  gained  many  advocates,  and  was  be- 
coming universal ;  when  Berenger,  the  learned  Archdea- 
con of  Angers,  began  to  oppose  it.  This  he  did  with  such 
abilities  and  success,  that  in  spite  of  the  several  councils 
mentioned  by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  in  spite  of  the  fierce 
menaces  of  implacable  enthusiasts,  mankind  was  awakened 


*  History  of  Opinions,  &c.  p.  41.     t  Ibid.  p.  43.    t  Ibid.  p.  321. 

$  This  writer  and  his  associates,  les  Messieurs  de  Port-Royal,  being  the 
avowed,  and,  it  may  be  added,  the  malicious  enemies  of  the  Jesuits,  it  is  won- 
derful that  the  Rev.  gentleman  should  so  highly  appreciate  La  Perpetuite  de 
la  Foi,  which  is  altogether  a  production  of  this  school,  and  is  justly  styled  by 
ItC  Courayer,  le  Triomphe  de  la  dialeciique  sur  la  raison. 


184 

by  the  firm  voice  of  reason,  and  France,  Italy,  and  England 
were  filled  with  his  disciples.*  From  that  period  to  the 
present,  great  and  respectable  bodies  of  Christians  have 
constantly  rejected  the  tenet  of  transubstantiation.  The 
facility  with  which  this  doctrine  was  abandoned,  shows 
plainly  that  it  had  taken  no  strong  hold  upon  men's  minds. 
It  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  far  greater  part  knew  not 
themselves  what  they  believed  on  this  head  ;  for,  at  periods 
infinitely  more  enlightened,  this  has  frequently  been  the 
case.  The  Chaplain,  therefore,  with  most  learned  Protes- 
tants, admits,  and  he  does  it  tvithout  any  reluctance,  that  the 
doctrine  of  the  carnal  presence  had  greatly  prevailed,  when 
Berenger  arose  to  refute  it ;  but  he  denies  that  it  had  full 
possession  of  men'' s  minds :  for  authentic  monuments  of  his- 
tory evince,  that,  at  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century, 
the  matter  was  frequently  debated,  and  an  opposite  opinion 
sometimes  taught.  One  proof,  out  of  many,  shall  suffice 
for  this  assertion.  Alfrick,  abbot  of  Malmesbury,  in  an 
Easter  homily,  which  he  wrote  about  the  year  1026,  has 
these  remarkable  words :  "  Men  have  often  searched,  and 
do  yet  often  search,  how  bread  that  is  gathered  of  corn,  and 

*  William  of  Malmesbury,  who,  as  Usher  asserts,  de  succ.  et  staf.  Christ. 
Eccl.p.  101,  was  the  author  of  the  Continuation  of  Bede,  printed  at  Heidel- 
berg in  1587,  tells  us,  "  that  all  France  w'as  full  of  his  doctrine,  which  was 
propagated  by  the  poor  students,  whom  he  gained  over  by  his  daily  alms." 
De  Gestis  Anglorum  lib.  3.  Roger  of  Wendover,  and  Matthew  Paris,  in  his 
history  of  the  year  1087,  support  the  same  fact.  In  a  word,  Matthew,  who 
collected  the  history  of  Westminster  and  Kochester,  tells  us  expressly,  "  that 
at  this  time  Berenger  of  Tours  falling  into  heretical  pravity,  had  corrupted 
all  the  French,  Italians,  and  English  with  his  errors."  Eodein  tempore  Be- 
rengarius  Turonensis  in  ha;recticam  lapsus  pravitatem,  omnes  Gallos,  Italos 
et  Anglos  suis  jam  corruperat  pravilalibus.  Hence,  as  Usher  observes,  we 
may  justly  call  in  question  the  assertion  of  Guitmundus,  when,  to  serve  his 
own  cause,  he  says  that  the  doctrine  of  Berenger  was  not  received  in  one  bo- 
rough, or  even  in  one  village.  In  a  word,  so  fluctuating  were  men's  opinions 
on  this  matter,  that  Engelbert,  Archbishop  of  Trevers,  assures  us,  that  Hiel- 
debrand  himself  was  doubtful,  whether  what  is  taken  at  the  Lord's  table  be 
the  true  body  and  blood  of  Christ.  Constitut.  Imp.  Goldast.  Tom.  1.  p.  4!o- 
apud  Usserium. 


185 

baked  by  the  heat  of  the  fire,  may  be  turned  into  Christ's 
body,  or  how  wine  that  is  pressed  out  of  many  grapes,  is 
turned  through  one  blessing  into  the  Lord's  blood."*  His 
solution  of  these  difficulties  is  not  only  similar  to  that  of 
Bertram,  mentioned  above,  but  in  many  places  translated 
literally  from  it.  The  text  of  each  of  these  writers  is  now 
before  the  Chaplain.  And  the  argument  he  draws  from 
this  fact  is  unanswerable.  This  homily  was  appointed  to 
be  read  publicly  to  the  people  in  England,  on  Easter  day, 
before  the  communion.  The  same  doctrine  was  delivered 
to  the  clergy,  by  the  bishops  at  their  respective  synods.  In 
one  of  these  writings,  directed  to  Wulffine,  bishop  of  Sher- 
burne, it  is  said,  "  that  the  housel  (communion)  is  Christ's 
body,  not  bodily  but  spiritually.  Not  the  body  in  which 
he  suffered,  but  the  body  of  which  he  spake,  when  he 
blessed  bread  and  wine  to  housel,  the  night  before  his  suf- 
fering," &c.  Again,  addressing  himself  to  Wolfstane, 
archbishop  of  York,  the  writer  thus  expresses  himself: 
"The  Lord  who  hallowed  housel  before  his  suffering,  hal- 
loweth  daily  bread  to  his  body,  by  the  hands  of  the  priest, 
and  wine  to  his  blood  in  spiritual  mystery,  as  we  read  in 
books.  And  yet,  notwithstanding,  that  lively  bread  is  not 
bodily  so,  nor  the  self-same  body  that  Christ  suffered  in : 
nor  that  holy  wine  is  the  Saviour's  blood  which  was  shed 
for  us  in  bodily  thiiig,  hut  in  spiritual  understanding.  Both 
are  truly  that  bread  his  body,  and  that  wine  also  his  blood, 
as  was  the  heavenly  bread  which  we  call  manna,  that  fed 
God's  people  for  forty  years  ;  and  the  clear  water  which  did 
then  run  from  the  stone  in  the  wilderness,  was  truly  his 
blood  ;  as  Paul  wrote  in  one  of  his  epistles."!  The  reader 
is  qualified  by  this  time  to  pronounce  upon  the  authorities 
alleged  by  the  Rev.  gentleman  for  the  universal  belief  of 

*  Homil.  pasch.  Anglo-Saxonica  impressa  Lond.  per.  Jo.  Daium  et  MS.  in 
Pub.  Cantab.  Acad.  Bib.  apud  Usserium  Respons.  p.  79. 

t  See  this  treatise  impr.  Lond.  cum  hom.  pasch.  et  MS.  in  pub.  Oxen.  Bib, 
et  Colleg.  S.  Ben.  Cantab,  apud  Usser.  ibid.  p.  82. 

q2 


186 

transubstantiation,  at  the  period  we  are  speaking  of.  He 
will  probably  regard  them  as  confident  assertions  usurping 
the  place  of  matters  of  fact,  or  as  fresh  instances  of  the  ig- 
norance of  these  assemblies.  At  any  rate,  no  council  that 
condemned  Berenger,  before  that  of  Lateran,  in  1215,  is 
allowed  to  be  general  by  Roman  Catholic  divines.  That 
held  at  Rome  in  1050,  by  the  confession  of  Gratian,  con- 
ceived its  decrees  in  terms  that  render  them  doubtful  or 
absurd.*  The  others  were  merely  provincial  synods,  by 
no  means  competent  to  establish  an  article  of  faith.  From 
all  which  it  follows,  that,  previous  to  the  council  of  Lateran, 
the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation  was  no  article  of  Roman 
Catholic  belief:  which  is  all  the  Chaplain  asserts  in  his 
letter. 

How  this  doctrine  gained  ground  during  the  gloomy  pe- 
riod that  intervened  between  Paschasius  and  Berenger,  in 
what  year  it  was  adopted  by  particular  Churches,  or  why  it 
met  not  with  more  early  opposition,  is  by  no  means  incum- 
bent on  the  Chaplain  to  demonstrate.  He  advanced  a  mat- 
ter of  fact,  and  he  has  proved  it.  They,  however,  who  are 
acquainted  with  the  imbecility  of  the  human  mind,  when 
all  its  faculties  are  suffered  to  lie  waste  and  uncultivated, 
will  deem  the  space  of  two  centuries  more  than  sufficient 
to  settle  the  usurpations  of  error  upon  the  overthrow  of 
reason.  The  origin  of  an  intellectual  as  well  as  of  a  bodily 
plague,  is  very  frequently  obscure  and  uncertain,  but  when 
the  mind  is  prepared  to  receive  the  infection,  its  progress 
and  its  ravages  are  rapid  and  distinct.  It  was  during  this 
dark  and  woful  period  of  astonishing  ignorance,  icliile  men 
rcere  asleep,  that  the  enemy  of  the  Church  came  and  sowed 
tares  among  the  wheat  and  loent  his  way.  (Matt.  xiii.  24, 
25.)  "An  unhappy  period,"  says  Genebrandjf  and  other 
Roman  Catholic  writers,  "destitute  of  men  either  of  genius 


*  These  decrees  may  be  seen  in  vol.  1.  of  Mosheim's  Ecclesiastical  History, 
t  Chronic,  lib.  4. 


187 

or  learning,  as  also  of  famous  princes  or  bishops."  **  A 
period  in  which  were  no  famous  writers,  nor  councils.^''* 
"  A  period  than  which  none  was  ever  more  unlearned  and 
unhappy."!  A  period  which,  "  for  want  of  writers,  is 
usually  styled  the  obscure  age.":{:  A  period,  in  a  word, 
when  an  aspiring  pontiff,  to  secure  the  attachment  and  sub- 
mission of  the  clergy,  broke  down  the  sacred  enclosures  of 
connubial  restraint,  and  thus  let  loose  on  Christendom  an 
inundation  of  vice,  which  raged  with  unabating  fury  down 
to  the  reformation. §  Now,  although  we  be  unable  to  mark 
the  several  stages  of  error,  or  fix  with  precision  every  de- 
vastation occasioned  by  the  spirit  of  deceit,  who,  "as  a 
roaring  lion,  walketh  about  seeking  whom  he  may  devour ;" 
(Pet.  v.  8.)  yet  we  cannot  infer  from  hence  that  he  lost  the 
opportunity  of  so  dark  a  night,  or  neglected  to  avail  himself 
of  the  unbounded  depravity  which  corrupted,  and  the  ge- 
neral lethargy  which  benumbed  the  faculties  of  men.  Pro- 
testants therefore  may  believe,  that  in  such  circumstances 
an  error  may  gradually  spread,  and  even  become  universal, 
and  "  still  find  transubstantiatioa  too  hard  for  their  diges- 
tion." 

*  Bellami.  in  ChronoL  anno  970.  This  assertion  of  the  learned  Cardinal 
runs  directly  counter  to  the  Rev.  gentleman's  opinion,  delivered  in  his  Ad- 
dress, page  108. 

t  Idem  de  Rom.  Pont.  lib-.  4.  cap.  12. 

X  Baron.  Annal.  Tom.  10.  ann.  900.  sect.  1. 

$  See  the  History  of  the  Dismal  Consequences  of  the  Law  of  Celibacy,  in 
Usher,  de  successione  &  statu  Christ.  Eccl.  and  the  Essay  on  this  subject, 
printed  at  Worcester,  in  England,  in  1782.  Sigebert,  a  cotemporary  writer, 
tells  us  in  his  chronicle,  "  that  Pope  Gregory  (VII.)  removed  the  married 
priests  from  the  divine  functions  by  a  new  procedure,  and  (as  it  appeared  to 
many)  by  a  rash  prejudice  against  the  opinion  of  the  holy  fathers,  &c.  From 
which  step,"  says  he,  "  so  great  a  scandal  arises,  that  in  the  time  of  no  he- 
resy was  the  holy  Church  torn  to  pieces,  by  a  more  dreadful  schism.  Few 
observing  continency,  some  feigning  it  for  the  sake  of  lucre  and  reputation  ,* 
many  adding  to  their  incontinency,  both  perjury  and  adultery."  How  greatly 
all  this,  and  much  more  that  could  be  alleged,  to  the  credit  of  celibacy,  and 
to  the  age  in  which  it  was  ultimately  enacted  ! 


188 

"  That  this  doctrine  ever  was,  and  is  still,  a  tenet  of  the 
Greeks,  the  Armenians,  the  Coptics,  and  Abyssinians,"  is 
a  position  much  more  easily  advanced  than  supported.  It 
positively  contradicts  the  latest  accounts  of  the  most  en- 
lightened travellers  ;  who  tell  us,  that  the  Greek  prelates, 
when  questioned  upon  this  doctrine,  reject  it  with  indigna- 
tion.* As  for  the  Cophs  and  Abyssinians,  their  ancient 
liturgies  explain  the  words  of  the  institution  by  saying, 
this  bread  is  my  hody,-\  which  Bellarmine  acknowledges  to 
be  tantamount  to  a  denial  of  the  mystery.:}:  Moreover,  will 
the  Rev.  gentleman  persuade  us,  that  the  Greek  Church 
admitted  transubstantiation  in  the  time  of  Photius,  when 
we  know  from  history,  that  the  fathers  of  the  council  of 
Constantinople,  in  869,  used  the  consecrated  wine  mixed 
with  ink  to  sign  his  condemnation  ?§  What  an  abuse  of 
the  Eucharistical  elements,  what  a  profanation  would  this 
have  been  !  The  belief  of  the  Greek  Church  upon  this 
matter  is  illustrated  by  John  Damascenus  in  the  following 
manner;  "Isaiah  saw  a  lighted  coal ;  now  a  lighted  coal 
is  not  mere  wood,  but  wood  joined  to  fire  ;  so  the  bread  of 
the  sacrament  is  not  mere  bread,  but  bread  joined  to  the 
divinity,  and  the  body  united  to  the  divinity  is  not  one  and 
the  same  nature,  but  the  nature  of  the  body  is  one,  and 
that  of  the  divinity  united  to  it  another."  "  This,"  says 
Dr.  Priestly, II  "  has  been  the  faith  of  the  Greek  Church 
ever  since  the  time  of  this  Damascenus,  who  wrote  in  the 
beginning  of  the  eighth  century,  and  his  name  is  as  great 
an  authority  in  the  Eastern  Church,  as  that  of  Thomas 
Aquinas   was   afterwards   in    the  West.     In  reality,    the 

*  See  their  several  relations,  in  Dr.  Kurd's  History  of  all  Religions. 
Among  others,  the  learned  Wheeler  and  Chandler  have  deposed  against  the 
Rev.  gentleman's  assertion. 

t  See  Usher  de  success,  et  statu  Christ.  Eccl. 

t  Non  igitur  potest  fieri,  ut  vera  sit  propositio,  in  qua  subjectum  proponit 
pro  pane,  praedicatum  autem  pro  corpore  Christi.  Panis  enim  et  corpus 
Domini  res  diversissimae  sunt.  Bellar.de  Euch.  lib.  3.  cap.  19. 

^  Priestly's  Hist,  of  Opinions,  p.  27.  |1  Ibid.  p.  24. 


189 

Greeks  must  consider  the  Eucharistical  elements  as  another 
body  of  Christ,  to  which  his  soul  or  his  divinity  bears  the 
same  relation  that  it  did  to  the  body  which  he  had  when  on 
earth,  and  with  which  he  ascended  to  heaven.  They  must 
suppose  that  there  is,  as  it  were,  a  multiplication  of  bodies 
to  the  same  soul.  No  real  change^,  however,  is  by  them 
supposed  to  be  made  in  the  substance  of  the  bread  and  ivine  ; 
only  from  being  mere  bread  and  wine,  it  becomes  a  new 
body  and  blood  to  Christ."  Here  is  a  doctrine  perfectly 
suited  to  the  subtile  genius  of  the  Greeks.  It  may  be  ab- 
surd, but  still  it  is  not  transubstantiation.  The  Rev.  gen- 
tleman, therefore,  appears  rather  too  sanguine,  when  he 
asserts,  "  that  obstinacy  or  ignorance  alone  can  deny  that 
his  doctrine  concerning  the  Eucharist,  agrees  with  that  of 
all  the  Churches  he  had  mentioned."  The  reader  has 
just  seen  the  decided  opinion  of  a  man  who  never  yet  was 
accused  of  ignorance,  nor  charged  with  obstinacy,  when 
disengaged  from  the  discussion  of  his  peculiar  opinions. 
Wherefore,  the  Rev.  gentleman's  inference  from  his  con- 
tested premises  will  not,  perhaps,  be  so  conclusive  as  he 
imagines  ;  nor  will  his  apology  for  the  dark  ages  be  admit- 
ted until  more  instances  of  knowledge  than  one  be  produced 
to  invalidate  the  profusion  of  authorities,  which  have  ever 
stamped  them  with  a  variety  of  infamy. 

The  Chaplain  had  advanced,  "  that  many  celebrated  con- 
trovertists  of  the  Roman  Church  acknowledge  that  some  of 
her  essential  tenets  are  not  to  be  found  at  all  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, or  are  delivered  in  them  with  great  obscurity."  He 
briefly  instanced  this  fact  with  respect  to  transubstantiation, 
the  priest's  power  to  forgive  sins,  and  the  doctrine  of  pur- 
gatory. He  produced  three  or  four  eminent  divines  as 
vouchers  for  the  first,  and  this  the  Rev.  gentleman  calls 
exhausting  his  authorities  against  transubstantiation.  The 
reader  might  conclude  from  these  words  that  instead  of 
about  thirty  lines,  the  Chaplain  had  compiled  a  folio  against 
this  tenet.     Not  that  such  a  task  would  by  any  means  be 


190 

difficult ;  were  he  merely  to  transcribe  all  the  passages  of 
the  ancient  fathers,  which  declare  that  what  Christ  called 
his  body,  is  bread  in  substance,  and  his  body  in  figure  only, 
and  sacramental  relation.  The  reader  who  may  wish  to 
peruse  these  passages,  will  find  them  in  abundance  in  every 
Protestant  controvertist  who  treats  upon  the  Eucharist. 
What  the  Chaplain  meant  to  infer  from  the  authorities 
which  he  mentioned  was  merely  the  sentiment  delivered  by 
Bellarmine  in  these  words :  "  that  it  may  be  reasonably 
doubted,  whether  Scripture  in  this  matter  appear  so  evi- 
dent as  to  command  the  belief  of  a  dispassionate  person, 
since  men  of  the  greatest  learning  and  penetration,  among 
whom  Scotus  is  eminently  conspicuous,  have  thought  other- 
wise."* Here  we  have  the  learned  Cardinal  expressly 
delivering  the  Chaplain's  position,  and  his  authority  alone 
shall  supersede  the  trouble  of  looking  for  other  great  names 
to  support  it. 

With  reason,  therefore,  did  the  Chaplain  assert,  "  that 
he  could  never  discover  this  and  some  other  doctrines  in 
the  Scriptures,  as  they  escaped  the  notice  of  very  acute  and 
interested  inquirers.''  He  observed,  consequently,  "  that 
these  discriminating  tenets  derive  their  whole  weight  from 
the  infallible  authority  of  the  Church  which  teaches  them." 
And  he  reasoned  further,  "  that  the  arguments  against 
these  doctrines,  drawn  from  their  palpable  contradictions, 
appear  greatly  an  overmatch  for  such  as  are  alleged  for  the 
infallible  Church  that  enforces  them:  therefore,  reason 
tells  him  that,  rather  than  admit  such  doctrines,  he  should 
not  balance  to  discard  such  authority."  To  illustrate  this 
argument  he  mentioned  a  few  consequences  of  transub- 
stantiation,  which  appear  to  him  absurd  and  contradictory. 
The  Rev.  gentleman  does  not  attempt  to  clear  them  of  this 
charge.  He  is  of  opinion,  however,  that  these  difficulties 
"  result  more  immediately  from  Christ's  real  presence  in 

*  De  Euch.  lib.  3.  cap.  23, 


191 

the  Eucharist  than  from  transubsfantiation ;  but,"  says  he, 
"  to  impute  them  to  that  doctrine  would  not  be  quite  so 
inoffensive."  Nor  would  it  in  any  degree  be  warrantable 
so  to  do  :  for  the  doctrine  of  Protestants,  on  this  head,  can 
defy  the  most  subtle  schoolman  to  fix  a  single  contradic- 
tion upon  it,  of  those  enumerated  in  the  Chaplain's  letter. 
Transubsfantiation  alone  holds  an  exclusive  right  in  them, 
and  will  continue  to  hold  it,  until  Protestants  shall  confess, 
or  their  opponents  demonstrate,  that  to  receive  the  body  and 
blood  of  Christ  verily  and  indeed,*  implies  not  only  a  spiri- 
tual and  sacramental  presence,  but  a  corporal  and  substan- 
tial presence,  a  physical  and  oral  eating  and  drinking  of 
Christ's  body  and  blood.  From  this  idea  only  every  diffi- 
culty originates.  Here  our  senses  are  bewildered,  our  re- 
ligion recoils,  our  reason  stands  aghast.  A  bit  of  bread 
becomes  the  substance  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  yet  retains 
all  the  properties  of  bread  !  A  moment  ago  it  was  nothing 
more.  Four  words  are  pronounced  by  a  priest,  and  this 
earthly  substance  becomes  the  physical  body  and  blood  of 
a  man — of  a  God  !  And  yet  it  appears,  tastes,  smells, 
feels,  and  nourishes  like  mere  bread  !  At  the  same  instant 
of  time  in  a  million  of  different  places,  the  same  identical 
body  exists  in  a  million  of  different  circumstances.  Here 
it  is  at  rest — there  in  motion.  Here  it  is  held  up  to  public 
adoration — there  it  descends  into  the  stomach  of  a  sinner. 
In  heaven  it  is  a  real  organical  body — on  earth  it  is  with- 
out organs,  without  dimensions,  without  extent,  without 
weight,  without  any  obvious  property  of  a  living  body. 
The  Rev.  gentleman  may  style  such  objections  the  "  foulest 
dregs  of  controversy  ;"  but  this  is  not  to  answer  them. 
No  wonder  the  Jews  were  astonished  at  the  idea  of  Christ 
skiving  his  flesh  to  eat :  (John  vi.)  taken  in  a  literal  sense, 
it  was  truly  a  hard  saying.  But  our  kind  Redeemer  pitied 
their  ignorance,  and  dispelled  their  perplexity.     "  It  is  the 

*  See  the  Catechism  of  the  Church  of  England. 


S 


192 

Spirit,"  says  he,  "  that  quickeneth,  the  flesh  profiteth  Hd* 
thing  ;  the  words  that  I  speak  unto  you  they  are  spirit,  and 
they  are  life."  (John  vi.  03.)  At  this  rational  comment 
every  difficulty  vanishes  :  faith  and  reason  are  no  longer  at 
variance.  Thrice  happy  had  it  been  for  the  cause  of  hu- 
manity and  religion,  if  this  solution  which  Christ  gives  of 
his  own  words,  had  been  seriously  attended  to  by  succeed- 
ing ages.  A  principal  subject  of  ridicule  had  been  removed 
from  unbelievers,  and  the  Arabian  sage  had  not  exclaimed 
with  exultation,  "  that  since  Christians  eat  what  they  adore, 
he  would  wish  his  soul  to  abide  with  the  philosophers."* 

The  Rev.  gentleman  is  of  opinion  that  many  circum- 
stances in  the  life  of  our  Saviour  are  full  as  exceptionable 
as  the  change  of  the.  substance  of  bread  into  his  natural 
body.  Were  this  really  the  case,  it  would  be  a  further 
justification  of  the  sentiment  of  Averroes.  But  let  a  single 
instance  in  the  life  of  Christ  be  exhibited,  that  induces  us 
to  discredit  the  evidence  of  our  senses.  The  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  nature,  although  incomprehensible,  falls 
not  within  their  sphere  of  action.  But  during  his  abode 
upon  earth,  his  form,  his  voice,  his  flesh,  were  those  of  a 
man,  while  his  sovereign  control  over  nature  proclaimed 
him  to  be  God.  All,  therefore,  who  saw,  heard,  and  touched 
him,  from  the  evidence  of  their  senses  declared  him  to  be 
the  former — they  who  reasoned  upon  his  wonders,  pro- 
nounced him  to  be  the  latter.  Is  the  case  anywise  similar 
in  transubstantiation  ?  The  Rev.  gentleman  indeed  pro- 
duces 3.  genuine  passage  from  St.  Chrysostom  to  prove  that 
we  must  submit  to  this  tenet,  however  it  seem  to  contradict 
our  senses.  "  Believe  me,"  says  this  Doctor,  "  you  see 
him,  you  touch  him,  you  eat  him.  You  would  be  content- 
ed to  see  his  clothes  ;  and  he  lets  you  not  only  see  him,  but 
also  touch  him,  and  eat  him,  and  receive  him  within  you." 


*  Quandoquidem  Christian!  comedunt  quod  adorant,  sit  anima  mea  cum 
philosophis.    Averroes, 


193 

(Horn.  81.  alias  82.  in  Matt.)  Here  the  reader  is  present- 
ed with  one  of  those  hyperbolical  passages  which  in  the 
heat  of  declamation  often  dropt  inadvertently  from  the 
glowing  fancy  of  the  Greeks.  The  Rev.  gentleman  him- 
self cannot  surely  admit  the  literal  meaning  of  these  words. 
For  does  he  not  profess,  that  Christ  is  only  present,  under 
the  appearances  of  bread  and  wine  ?  How  then  can  we  see 
his  body,  when  nothing  but  bread  and  wine  appears;  or 
touch  it,  when  the  sacramental  elements  are  the  sole  ob- 
ject of  this  sense?  This  genuine  quotation,  therefore,  avails 
but  little — like  many  other  expressions  of  the  ancient  fa- 
thers, which  escaped  them  during  their  extempore  dis- 
courses, it  will  not  stand  the  test  of  analytical  criticism. 
However,  to  convince  the  reader  that  no  passage  from  this, 
or  any  other  of  the  fathers,  can  be  brought  forth  for  tran- 
substantiation,  to  which  a  counter-passage  cannot  be  pro- 
duced, let  him  peruse  the  following  words  of  the  same  elo- 
quent doctor,  taken  from  his  dogmatical  epistle  to  Cesarius 
against  the  heresy  of  Apolinarius  :*  "  As,  before  the  bread 
is  sanctified,  we  call  it  bread;  but  when  God's  grace  has 
sanctified  it  by  the  means  of  the  priest,  it  is  delivered  from 
the  name  of  bread,  and  is  reputed  worthy  of  the  name  of 
the  Lord's  body,  although  the  nature  of  bread  remain  still 
in  itj''^  <SfC.  Whoever  will  open  any  Protestant  writer  upon 
this  subject,  or  be  at  the  trouble  of  perusing  the  ancient 
fathers  themselves,  will  quickly  discover  a  variety  of  pas- 
sages equally  conclusive  against  any  physical  change  in  the 
nature  of  the  elements,  and  evidently  proving  that  the  old 
writers  spoke  merely  of  a  presence  of  unions  ejficacy  and 


*  This  passage  makes  so  powerfully  against  transubstantiation,  that  several 
Roman  Catholic  writers  have  called  the  authenticity  of  this  letter  in  ques- 
tion. But  Archbishop  Usher  says,  he  finds  it  cited  in  the  collections  against 
the  Severians,  which  are  to  be  seen  in  Canisius'  Lectiones  Ayitiquce,  Tom.  4. 
page  238,  translated  by  Francis  Turrianus.  It  is  also  twice  cited  by  John 
Damascen  against  the  Acephali,  and  the  context  of  this  passage  is  adopted  by 
the  Jesuit  Turrianus.     Ush.  Catalogue  of  Authors,  ^c.  ad  ann.  400. 

R 


194 

grace.  If  in  other  parts  of  their  writings  they  sometimes 
countenance  a  physical  and  carnal  presence,  we  must  con- 
clude that  their  notions  on  this  matter  were  vague  and  un- 
settled,  and  that  they  conceived  themselves  at  liberty  to  ex- 
plain the  words  of  tlie  eucharistic  institution,  in  the  manner 
best  suited  to  their  audience,  or  the  subject  matter  of  their 
several  discourses.  The  Chaplain  entreats  the  reader  to 
bear  with  him  a  few  moments  longer  on  this  head,  and  he 
will  dismiss  it  altogether.  It  is  with  much  reluctance  that 
he  has  dwelt  on  it  so  long. 

He  had  mentioned  in  a  note  two  negative  arguments  to 
prove  that  transubstantiation  was  unknown  to  the  ancient 
Christians.  They  appeared  to  him  to  amount  to  a  moral 
demonstration;  and  they  appear  so  still.  The  first  is  this — 
It  is  well  known  that  the  orthodox  writers  against  the  Arians 
exhausted  every  source  of  argument  which  a  zeal  for  truth, 
or  the  warmth  of  controversy,  could  suggest,  to  prove  the 
divinity  of  Christ.  Now,  would  not  this  doctrine  have  de- 
rived great  support  from  the  following  fact,  viz.  *'  that  Chris- 
tians from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  had  always  conceived 
Christ  to  be  really  and  corporally  present  in  the  Eucharist, 
and  that  the  elements  were  then  and  ever  had  been  adored 
with  the  same  supreme  worship  as  is  paid  to  the  Father?" 
And  yet  this  fact,  so  favourable  to  their  cause,  is  never 
mentioned  by  one  of  these  numerous  and  eminent  writers: 
an  evident  proof  that  it  did  not  exist.  But,  says  the  Rev. 
gentleman,  the  Arians  did  not  deny  that  Christ  was  "adi- 
vine  personjN^rue  God  of  true  God,  eternal,  the  same  God 
with  the  1  ather, — and,  therefore,  an  object  of  divine  wor- 
ship." As  a  voucher  for  this  doctrine  of  the  Arians,  he  in- 
troduces Socrates,  a  Novatian  heretic,  whose  historical  in- 
accuracy is  well  known  to  the  critics.  Some  few  of  the 
Arians,  however,  may  have  made  these  concessions;  but  if 
the  reader  will  peruse  the  history  of  this  heresy  in  the  ele- 
gant Mr.  Gibbon,  or  the  temperate  Priestly,  he  will  find, 
that  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  sect  adhered  to  the  ori- 


195 

ginal  doctrine  of  Arius,  maintaining  that  "  the  Son  of  God 
was  a  creature  neither  co-eternal  nor  con-substantial  with 
the  Father,"  This  opinion  of  Arius  is  gathered  from 
Epiphanius,  Augustin,  and  Theodoret,  by  the  learned  Bel- 
larmine,  whose  words  are  these. ''^  "Arius,  a  priest  of 
Alexandria,  taught  that  the  Son  of  God  is  a  creature  neither 
co-eternal  nor  co-essential  with  the  Father."  Here  is  a 
firm  foundation  for  the  Chaplain's  argument,  erected  upon 
an  authority  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  will  hardly  contro- 
vert. The  Arians  taught  that  Christ  is  a  creature,  yet  the 
writers  who  refuted  them  never  urged  the  practice  of  ador- 
ing him  with  supreme  worship  in  the  Eucharist,  to  prove 
him  to  be  God.  The  omission  of  this  circumstance  must 
evince  the  nullity  of  any  such  practice :  it  shows,  more- 
over, that  the  adoration  mentioned  in  St.  Chrysostom's 
liturgy,  means  only  an  inferior  act  of  reverence  to  the  ele- 
ments, or  a  supreme  act  of  worship  paid  to  Christ,  either 
spiritually  present,  or  reigning  personally  with  his  Father 
in  heaven. 

The  second  negative  argument  is  drawn  from  the  silence 
of  pagan  writers  with  respect  to  the  inconsistencies  of 
transubstantiation.  Had  this  tenet  been  current  when  they 
wrote,  no  privacy  of  worship  could  have  concealed  it  from 
them.  Every  persecution  made  many  apostates  who  would 
naturally  communicate,  expose,  and  ridicule  so  unnatural 
a  doctrine.  It  could  not  have  escaped  the  knowledge  of 
a  Celsus,  a  Porphyry,  or  a  Julian.  "  The  Philosophers," 
says  the  learned  professor  Bullet,t  "saw  with  concern  the 
success  of  Christianity.     Whether  out  of   zeal   for  their 


*  Chron.  pars  altera  p.  495.  de  Scrip.  Eccl. 

t  Histoire  de  rEtablissement  du  Christianisme  trace  des  Auteurs  Juifs  «fe 
Payens,  &c.  The  History  of  the  Establishment  of  Christianity,  compiled 
from  Jewish  and  Heathen  Authors  only,  exhibiting  a  substantial  proof  of  the 
truth  of  this  religion,  by  Professor  Bullet,  Dean  of  the  University  of  Besan- 
con,  &c.  &c.  This  work  is  earnestly  recommended  to  all  those  who  wish  to 
satisfy  their  doubts  relating  to  the  system  of  Christianity. 


196 

gods,  or  vexation  to  see  themselves  confounded,  they  re- 
solved to  exert  their  most  vigorous  efforts  to  stop  the  course 
of  this  religion:  they  studied  its  doctrines:  they  perused 
with  attention  its  books,  with  a  view  to  heighten  all  the 
difficulties  they  could  find  there.  Celsus,  Porphyry,  and 
Julian,  composed  works,  in  which  they  employed  all  the 
resources  of  their  genius,  to  give  a  plausible  turn  to  idola- 
try, and  to  charge  Christianity  with  contradictions  and  ab- 
surdities.''^— And  yet  among  these  alleged  absurdities,  we 
do  not  meet  with  one  that  results  from  transubstantiation. 
Although  they  studied  the  doctrines  of  Christianity,  al- 
though Julian  was  born  and  educated  a  Christian,  yet  this 
tenet,  so  fraught  with  contradictions,  escaped  his  ridicule 
and  his  censure.  To  swallow  such  improbabilities,  is  to 
set  every  rule  of  historical  criticism  at  defiance.  To  sup- 
pose, that  objections  of  this  nature  might  have  been  made 
by  the  pagans,  although  not  one  of  them  be  recorded  in 
their  works  which  have  come  down  to  us,  or  in  those  of 
the  voluminous  Christian  writers  who  refuted  them,  will  be 
deemed,  perhaps,  an  instance  of  as  violent  prejudice  as  that 
to  which  the  Chaplain's  renunciation  of  some  former  opin- 
ions is  ungenerously  attributed.  In  this  instance,  as  in 
others,  let  the  informed  and  impartial  reader  pronounce. 

At  the  close  of  the  note  above  mentioned,  the  Chaplain 
begged  leave  to  add,  "  that  the  fathers  of  the  second  coun- 
cil of  Nice  confirm  the  opinion,  that  Chrisfs  body  in  hea- 
ven is  notfesh  and  blood :  therefore,  even  supposing  bread 
and  wine  to  be  changed  into  his  body  and  blood,  they  can- 
not become  his  body  as  it  now  is  in  heaven."  For  this 
passage  he  quoted  I'Abbe's  collection  of  the  councils. 
(Tom.  6.  p.  541.)  The  Rev.  gentleman  tells  us,  that  he 
"  knows  not  where  to  find  this  collection  in  America,  but 
I  aver,"  says  he,  "  that  no  such  doctrine  was  delivered  or 
entertained  by  the  fathers  of  that  council  ;  and  will,  there- 
fore, without  fear  of  being  convicted  of  rashness,  undertake 
to  say,  that  the  Chaplain  cannot  support  what  he  has  here 


197 

advanced.  As  in  many  other  instances,  so  likewise  in  this, 
the  Chaplain  has  suffered  himself  to  be  misled  by  authors, 
whom  I  hope  he  will  deservedly  mistrust  for  the  time  to 
come — their  unfaithfulness  is  eminently  conspicuous  in  the 
present  instance."  It  must  give  pain  to  all  who  know  the 
Hev.  gentleman,  to  behold  him  thus  battling  with  a  sha- 
dow, and  accusing  the  Chaplain  and  Protestant  writers,  of 
opinions  which  never  entered  into  their  heads  to  advance. 
Does  the  quotation  from  the  council  insinuate  in  the  most 
distant  manner,  that  "  Christ  had  no  true  body  upon  earth, 
or  that  he  only  exhibited  the  appearance  of  a  body?"  The 
Chaplain  will  aver,  that  no  such  idea  is  held  out  in  his  let- 
tcr,  or  by  any  author  whom  he  is  advised  to  mistrust.  All 
that  the  passage  cited  by  I'Abbe  says,  is,  that  Christ's  body 
in  heaven  is  not  flesh  and  blood.  This  opinion,  the  Rev. 
gentleman  must  know,  was  entertained  by  many  of  the  pri- 
mitive Christians.  The  fact  is  clearly  demonstrated  by 
Burnet  in  his  treatise  de  statu  mortuorum  et  resurgentium  ; 
and  it  was  grounded  on  this  passage  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Co- 
rinthians,.(xv.  50.)  "  Now  this  I  say,  brethren,  that  flesh 
and  blood  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God,  neither  doth 
corruption  inherit  incorruption."  Not  a  word  is  mentioned 
of  Christ's  human  body  previous  to  his  ascension.  The 
Chaplain,  therefore,  stands  acquitted  of  inaccuracy,  and  his 
argument  on  this  head  is  as  formidable  as  ever. 

The  doctrine  of  purgatory  is  another  discriminating  tenet 
of  the  Roman  Church,  which  the  Chaplain  could  not  disco- 
ver in  the  Scriptures.  It  must  therefore  rest  solely  upon 
the  infallibility  of  this  Church.  He  instanced  an  eminent 
Roman  Catholic  writer,  asserting  '•  that  the  Greeks  reject 
this  tenet,  that  their  ancient  doctors  seldom  or  never  men- 
tioned it,  and  that  the  Latins  became  acquainted  with  it 
only  by  degrees,"  (pedetentim.)  He  found  some  great 
divines  rejecting  texts  which  others  deemed  conclusive  in 
favour  of  this  doctrine,  and  discovered  no  plausible  counte- 
nance given  it  except  in  an  apochryphal  book  of  the  Bible. 

B    2 


198 

After  all  this  he  ventured  to  assert  that  this  doctrine  is  not 
contained  in  the  Scriptures.  The  Rev.  gentleman  offers 
nothing  to  invalidate  this  position.  He,  indeed,  refers  the 
Chaplain  to  the  Catholic  Scripturist  for  authorities  to  sup- 
port this  tenet ;  and  "  is  well  convinced,  that  the  prevail- 
ing reason  which  moved  the  compilers  of  the  English  Bible 
to  reject  the  books  of  Maccabees,  was  the  support  which 
tbey  observed  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  purgatory  would 
derive  from  it."  As  to  the  authorities  in  the  Catholic 
Scripturist,  many  of  them  have  so  little  weight  even  with 
Roman  Catholic  divines,  that  they  can  hardly  be  supposed 
to  contain  much  intrinsic  evidence.  With  regard  to  the 
compilers  of  the  English  Bible,  the  Chaplain  trusts  that 
other  motives  can  be  offered  for  their  rejecting  the  books  of 
Maccabees  from  the  canon  of  the  Scriptures,  than  one  so 
base  and  ungenerous  as  the  Rev.  gentleman  suggests.  Is 
he  able  to  penetrate  into  the  hearts  of  these  learned  com- 
pilers, and  there  discover  the  secret  springs  of  their  con- 
duct ?  After  the  most  mature  and  upright  deliberation, 
might  they  not  have  been  convinced,  that  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  second  of  Peter  and  of  James,  &;c.  although 
questioned  by  a  few  of  the  ancient  fathers,  were  at  all  times 
deemed  canonical  by  the  much  greater  part  of  Christians, 
while  at  the  same  time  they  saw  plainly  that  the  books  of 
Maccabees  were  ever  judged  apocryphal  by  the  primitive 
Church  1  Perpetuity  and  uniformity  of  testimony  was  all 
they  could  go  upon.  These  they  found  vouching  for  the 
authenticity  of  some  books,  whilst  others  were  destitute  of 
such  essential  supports.  Among  the  latter  are  these  books 
of  the  Maccabees.  Previous  to  the  council  of  Carthage, 
St.  Jerome  tells  us,  "that  the  Church  in  his  time,  read,  in- 
deed, these  books  :  but  did  not  admit  them  among  the  ca- 
nonical Scriptures."*     "  All  these,"  says  Rufinus,  "  were 


*  Legit  quidem  ecclcsia,  sed  eoa  inter  canonicas  scripturas  non  recipit. 
In.  lib.  Salom. 


199 

read  in  the  Churches,  but  not  as  authorities  for  proving  the 
faith  :"*  And  after  the  same  council,  St.  Gregery  excuses 
himself  for  citing  the  books  of  Maccabees,  "although,"  says 
he,  "  they  be  not  canonical. "f  Thus,  notwithstanding  the 
alleged  authority  of  this  council,  and  of  Pope  Innocent,  we 
find  these  books  rejected  from  the  canon  of  Scripture, 
through  every  age  and  every  country,  even  down  to  the 
council  of  Trent.  They  were  deemed  apocryphal  by  Juni- 
lius  and  Primasius,  in  Africa,  by  Cassiodorus  and  Gregory, 
in  Italy,  by  Isodore  of  Seville,  in  Spain,  by  Alcuin,  in 
France,  by  Bede,  in  England,  by  Rabanus  Maurus,  in  Ger- 
many. Cajetan,  writing  to  Pope  Clement  VII.ij:  declares 
them  not  to  be  canonical.  Thus,  the  agreement  of  Chris- 
tian writers  upon  this  matter,  before  the  16th  century,  has 
been  nearly  uniform ;  so  that  among  all  the  modern  dog- 
mas of  the  council  of  Trent,  this  has  the  least  to  boast  of, 
from  uninterrupted  tradition.  Were  this  digression  entire- 
ly foreign  to  the  subject,  the  reader  would  still  pardon  it  as 
an  apology  for  the  very  learned  and  respectable  divines  who 
translated  the  English  Bible. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  next  tells  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
America,  "  that  no  article  of  the  Christian  belief  has 
stronger  evidence  from  the  testimony  of  the  early  fathers, 
than  the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  They  prove  incontestably 
the  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  ;  they  assert  that  by 
the  prayers  of  the  faithful  in  this  life,  comfort  and  relief  is 
obtained  for  those  who  are  departed  out  of  it ;  which  is 
establishing  as  much  of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory,  as  we  are 
obliged     to    believe.''      Are   Roman    Catholics    then    not 


*  Qua3  omnia  legi  quidem  in  ecclesiis  volnerunt,  non  tamen  proferri  ad 
auctoriatatem  ex  his  fidei  confirmandam.     Expos.  Syrnb. 

t  De  qua  re  cavenda  non  inordinate  facimus,  si  ex  libris,  licet  non  canoni- 
cis,  sed  tamen  ad  aedificationem  ecclesiae  edilis,  testimonium  proferamus. 
<S'.  Greg.  Expos,  in  Job.  lib.  19.  cap.  17. 

I  Non  sunt  hi  libri  canonici,  hoc  est,  non  sunt  regulares  ad  firmandum  ea 
quae  sunt  fidei.     Epistol.  dedicat.  ad  Clem.  VII. 


200 

obliged  to  believe,  that  purgatory  is  a  place  of  torment  and 
punishment?  Is  it  not  an  article  of  their  belief  that  the 
guilt  of  venial  sin,  and  the  temporal  punishment  due  to 
mortal,  are  done  away  by  the  torments  of  purgatory  ?  What 
says  the  most  authentic  catechism  of  the  Roman  Church, 
published  under  the  sanction  of  the  Pope,  in  consequence 
of  an  express  decree  of  the  council  of  Trent,  for  the  in- 
struction of  parish  priests  ?  "  There  is  a  purgatory,"  that 
is  to  say,  "  a  purgatory  fire,  by  which  the  souls  of  the  pious 
being  for  a  determinate  time  tormented,  are  expiated  or 
purged,  that  an  entrance  into  their  eternal  kingdom  may 
be  opened  to  them."*  Now,  had  the  early  Greek  or  Latin 
Christians  any  idea  of  a  purgatory  like  this  1  Neither  of 
the  passages  alleged  by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  from  Cyril 
and  Clirysostom,  throws  out  a  distant  hint  of  any  such 
thincr.  That  the  ancient  Christians  commemorated  and 
prayed  for  the  dead,  no  informed  Protestant  ever  meant  to 
deny.  But  it  does  not  follow,  that  they  conceived  them  to 
be  in  a  state  of  purgation  or  punishment.  Because  we 
pray  for  our  absent  friends,  must  we  therefore  believe  them 
to  be  tormented  and  miserable?  The  fact  is,  many  of  the 
ancient  fathers  imagined,  that  the  souls  of  the  departed 
faithful  were  not  to  be  admitted  into  the  complete  enjoy- 
ment of  heaven,  until  the  general  resurrection  ;  but  that  in 
the  mean  time  they  expected  this  great  event  in  the  bosom 
of  Abraham,  in  a  state  of  tranquillity  and  rest,  capable  of 
receiving  additional  happiness  from  the  supplications  of 
their  pious  brethren  upon  earth.  This  idea  laid  the  only 
foundation  for  praying  for  the  dead.  However  unwarrant- 
ed it  may  be,  it  has  certainly  no  affinity  with  the  modern 
doctrine  of  purgatory.  The  Chaplain  has  no  inclination  to 
load  his  page  with  voluminous  quotations.  No  occupation 
requires  less  genius  or  more  labour  than  that  of  a  compiler  ; 
yet  he  cannot  forbear  instancing  a  {ew  authorities,  that 

*  See  the  Roman  Catechism. 


201 

place  the  ideas  of  the  early  Christians  upon  this  subject  in 
their  true  point  of  view.  Such  an  article  of  Church  history 
will  be  interesting  to  some  readers,  while  to  others  it  will 
appear  at  least  a  matter  of  curiosity.  "  We  observe,''  says 
the  ancient  author  of  the  commentaries  upon  Job,  among 
Origen's  works,*  "  the  memorials  of  the  saints,  and  devout- 
ly keep  the  remembrance  of  our  parents  and  friends  who 
die  in  the  faith,  as  well  to  rejoice  for  their  refreshment,  as 
to  request  for  ourselves  a  godly  consummation  in  the  faith 

that  our  festivity  may  be  for  a  memorial  of  rest  to 

the  souls  departed,  ....  and  to  us  may  become  a  sweet 
savour  in  the  sight  of  the  eternal  God."  St.  Cyprian, 
speaking  of  Laurence  and  Ignatius,  whom  he  acknowledges 
to  have  received  the  crown  of  martyrdom,  says,  "  We  offer 
sacrifices  always  for  them,  when  we  celebrate  the  passions 
and  days  of  the  martyrs  with  an  anniversary  commemora- 
tion."f  St.  Chrysostom,  discoursing  on  the  funeral  ordi- 
nances of  the  Church,  writes  as  follows  :  "  Tell  me,  what 
do  the  bright  lamps  mean  ?  Do  we  not  accompany  them 
with  these  as  champions?  What  mean  the  hymns?  Con- 
sider what  thou  dost  sing  at  that  time.  Return,  my  soul, 
into  thy  rest ;  for  the  Lord  hath  dealt  bountifully  with 
thee  !  And  again  :  thou  art  my  refuge  from  the  affliction, 
that  compasseth  me.":}: 

The  liturgy  used  in  the  Church  of  Syria,  and  attributed 
to  St.  Basil,  has  these  words :  "  Be  mindful,  O  Lord,  of 
them  who  are  dead  and  departed  out  of  this  life,  and  of  the 
orthodox  bishops  who  from  Peter  and  James  the  Apostles, 
until  this  day,  have  clearly  professed  the  right  word  of 
faith  ;  and  namely  of  Ignatius,  Dionysius,  Julius,  and  the 
rest  of  the  saints  of  worthy  memory. "§  And  in  the  liturgy 
ascribed  to  the  Apostles  we  read  :  "  We  offer  unto  thee  for 
all  the  saints  who  have  pleased  thee  from  the  beginning  of 


*  Lira.  3.  Comment,    t  Epist.  34.    |  In  Epist.  ad  Hebraeos  hora.  4, 
$  Anaphora  ab  Andr.  Maesio  ex  Syriaco  conversa^ 


202 

the  world,  patriarchs,  prophets,"  &c.  &:c.*  In  the  liturgies 
of  the  Churches  of  Egypt,  said  to  have  been  written  by  St. 
Basil,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  we 
meet  with  sentiments  entirely  similar.  "Be  mindful,  O 
Lord,  of  thy  saints :  vouchsafe  to  remember  all  thy  saints 
who  have  pleased  thee  from  the  beginning,  &;c.  and  espe- 
cially the  holy,  glorious,  the  evermore  Virgin  Mary,  the 
mother  of  God,  and  St.  John  the  forerunner,  St.  Stephen," 
(Scc-t  And  again,  in  the  liturgy  of  the  Church  of  Con- 
stantinople, attributed  to  St.  Chrysostom  ;  "  We  offer  unto 
thee  this  reasonable  serviceybr  those  who  are  at  rest  in  the 
faith,  our  forefathers,  fathers,  patriarchs,"  &:c.  &;c.:{:  This 
expression  of  offer ingybr  the  saints,  becoming  exceptiona- 
ble some  centuries  after,  was  thus  modified  in  the  Latin 
translation  by  Leo  Thuscus,  for  the  patriarchs,  <^c.  inter- 
ceding  for  us  ;^  which  last  words  are  not  to  be  found  in  the 
Greek  original  now  before  the  Chaplain.  Similar  senti- 
ments are  delivered  by  St.  Ambrose  in  several  parts  of  his 
writings, 11  and  by  the  other  fathers  who  have  treated  of  this 
subject.  In  a  word,  the  commemorations  for  the  dead,  which 
are  read  in  the  mass  at  this  day,  so  far  from  mentioning  any 
place  of  torment,  suppose  on  the  contrary  that  the  souls 
who  are  prayed  for  are  already  in  a  state  of  tranquillity  and 
rest.  Let  this  one  prayer  suffice  for  this  assertion.  "  Re- 
member, O  Lord,  thy  servants  and  handmaids,  who  have 
gone  before  us  with  the  ensign  of  faith,  and  sleep  in  the 
sleep  of  peace.  To  them,  O  Lord,  and  to  all  who  rest  in 
Christ,  we  beseech  thee  that  thou  wouldst  grant  a  place  of 
refreshment,  light,  and  peace-"^    In  none  of  these  passages 

*  Conslitut.  Apost.  lib.  8.  cap.  12. 

t  Litnrg.  ^gyp.  a  Viclorio  Scialach  ex  Arab  convers.  p.  22.  47  et  60.  edit. 
August,  ann.  1604.     t  Chrys.  liturg.  Graec.     $  Chrys.  liturg.  Lat. 

II  De  obitu  Valent.  Imp.     Idem  de  obitu  Theodosii,  &c. 

T  Missale  Romanum.  In  the  mass  for  the  dead,  some  of  the  prayers  en- 
treat a  deliverance  from  hell — but  none  from  purgatory — because,  as  Bellar- 
mine  observes,  "  the  Church  prays  for  the  souls  in  purgatory,  that  they  may 
not  be  condemned  to  the  everlasting  pains  of  hell ;  not,  indeed,  because  it  is 


203 

will  the  reader  be  able  to  discover  the  modern  doctrine  of 
purgatory.  He  will  therefore  hardly  assent  to  the  Rev* 
gentleman's  position,  "  that  no  article  of  the  Christian  be- 
lief, has  stronger  evidence  from  the  testimony  of  the  early 
fathers." 

Another  point  of  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
is  the  necessity  and  divine  institvtion  of  confession.  The 
Chaplain  had  advanced  as  a  matter  of  fact,  that  "  this  opin- 
ion was  discussed  by  ancient  writers  with  great  freedom, 
and  that  centuries  were  requisite  to  settle  this  practice  in 
its  present  form."  To  support  this  fact,  he  alleged  some 
authorities,  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  cannot  possibly  set 
aside.  And,  indeed,  if  the  passages  from  Cardinal  Hugo, 
Gratian,  Alcuin,  and  Maldonatus  do  not  completely  justify 
the  Chaplain's  assertion,  words  can  have  no  explicit  mean- 
ing, but  what  may  yield  to  the  subtilty  of  a  theological 
quibble.  But  the  truth  is,  that  previous  to  the  Lateran 
council,  in  1215,  it  was  the  opinion  of  many  orthodox  di- 
vines, that  Confession  to  God  alone  was  sufficient.  Thomas 
Aquinas  and  Bonaventure  are  both  vouchers  for  this  fact. 
"The  master  of  the  sentences,"  says  the  former,  "and 
Gratian,  are  of  this  opinion,  but  now,  since  the  decision  of 
the  Church  under  Innocent  III.,  we  must  deem  it  hereti- 
cal.''* The  date  of  this  tenet,  therefore,  can  be  traced  no 
higher  than  the  13th  century  :  and  even  since  that  period, 
several  divines  have  not  regarded  the  Lateran  decision  as 
final.  Of  this  opinion  was  the  commentator  upon  Gratian, 
Scotus,  Panormitanus,  Michael  of  Bologna,  &;c.  not  to  men- 
tion Erasmus,  Rhenanus,  cardinal  Cajetan,  and  others  of  a 
still  more  recent  date.  So  that  the  learned  Richer  had 
good  reason  to  conclude,  and  the  Chaplain  with  him,  "  that 
internal  confession  is,  indeed,  of  divine  right,  but  that  out- 

not  certain,  that  they  are  not  to  be  condemned  to  these  pains ;  but  because 
God  is  pleased,  that  we  should  pray  even  for  those  things  which  we  are  cer- 
tainly to  receive."    Bell,  de  Purgat.  lib.  2.  cap.  5. 
*In4dist.  17. 


204 

ward  confession  is  no  more  than  an  ecclesiastical  institu- 
tion," not  enjoined  by  the  Scripture,  nor  regarded  as  essen- 
tial by  the  ancient  Churches  of  Christendom. 

The  Chaplain  trusts,  that  by  this  time  the  reader  is  con- 
vinced, "  that  the  Roman  Church  regards  some  doctrines 
at  present  as  articles  of  faith,  which  for  many  ages  were 
debated  as  matters  of  opinion."  The  Rev.  gentleman  him- 
self admits  the  fact,  yet  lays  the  Chaplain  under  the  tedious 
necessity  of  proving  it.  Now,  an  argument  arises  hence 
against  the  system  of  infallibility,  which  appears  unan- 
swerable. The  solution  at  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  la- 
bours from  the  80th  to  the  85th  page  of  his  Address,  can 
only  be  supported  on  the  idea  of  a  progressive  religion. 
He  allows,  that  doctrines  not  of  faith  yesterday,  may  be  so 
to-day,  because  evidence  of  their  divine  revelation  may  be 
had  to-day  which  was  wanted  yesterday.  "In  perilous 
times,"  says  he,  "  the  Church  unfold  the  doctrines"  com- 
mitted to  her  charge,  which,  in  proportion  as  they  are  thus 
unfolded,  become  objects  of  faith.  It  was  principally, 
when  heresies  were  condemned,  that  the  opposite  Catholic 
verity  was  established.  Yet,  previous  to  this  condemna- 
tion, these  errors  were  for  ages  adopted  by  the  faithful. 
Where  was  infallibility  during  this  prevalence  of  error? 
Was  the  Church  conscious  of  this  prerogative,  or  did  she 
neglect  to  exert  it?  If,  for  instance,  the  opinion  of  svffi- 
ciency  of  confession  to  God  alone  was  opposite  to  a  revealed 
truth,  which  had  been  committed  to  her  by  Christ  or  his 
Apostles,  why  did  she  tolerate  it  for  more  than  twelve  cen- 
turies, and  thus  neglect  to  deliver  a  truth,  and  enforce  a 
practice,  which  Christ  and  his  Apostles  taught  to  be  essen- 
tial to  salvation  1  What  the  Rev.  gentleman  remarks,  of 
the  faithful  receiving  gradual  information  from  the  writings 
of  the  Apostles,  can  have  no  weight  with  those  who  con- 
ceive these  writings  to  have  been  inspired  with  a  view  of 
completing  the  Christian  system  of  belief.  These  writings 
being  finished,  and  their  authors  dead,  the  gracious  scheme 


205 

of  revelation  was  closed,  and  a  dreadful  wo  pronounced 
against  those,  who  should  add  to,  or  abridge  this  work  of 
the  Almighty.  (Gal.  i.  9.)  From  that  period  to  the  present, 
the  Christian  Church  "has  authority  in  controversies  of 
faith,  she  is  a  witness  and  keeper  of  holy  writ:*  when  her 
decisions  are  supported  by  the  testimony  of  antiquity  and 
universal  consent,  it  would  be  equally  rash  and  senseless 
to  contest  them.  But  our  assent  in  these  cases  rests  not 
upon  any  infallible  authority.  In  facts  of  an  historical  as 
well  as  a  religious  nature,  a  perpetual,  general,  and  uniform 
testimony  is  fully  sufficient  to  command  our  belief.  But 
when  we  find  a  particular  Church  or  body  of  Christians 
proposing  doctrines  as  of  faith,  which  are  destitute  of  this 
testimony,  doctrines,  which,  for  many  ages,  men  of  sanctity 
and  erudition  did  not  conceive  to  be  essential,  and  which 
she  herself  chose  to  tolerate,  deeming  them  immaterial ; 
may  we  not  regard  the  infallibility  of  such  a  Church  as 
chimerical,  and  her  pretensions  to  it  as  the  principal  ob- 
stacle to  the  removing  of  abuses  which  have  darkened  the 
pure  simplicity  of  the  Gospel,  and  rendered  Christianity  a 
stumbling  block  to  the  weak-minded,  and  a  scoff  to  the 
philosopher?  The  Chaplain,  with  the  conviction  of  this 
upon  his  mind,  resolved  to  have  recourse  "  to  the  law  and 
to  the  testimony."  (Isa.  viii.  20.)  Here  alone  is  infallibi- 
lity to  be  met  with.  Let  the  Church  adhere  to  these,  and 
she  shall  never  err.  Upon  these  alone  is  grounded  the 
Christian  Catholic  faith,  into  which  we  are  initiated  at  our 
baptism,  which  we  repeat  in  our  Churches,  and  profess 
upon  our  death-beds.f  Here  is  that  pure,  that  Catholic  be- 
lief which  we  find  expressed  in  the  Apostles'  creed ;  here 


*  Church  of  England's  Articles. 

1  It  may  be  asked  why  the  Chaplain  abandoned  the  Roman  Church,  if  her 
children  at  baptism  be  initiated  into  the  very  same  faith  which  Protestants 
profess  when  they  are  admitted  to  that  sacrament  ?  The  answer  is,  because 
many  other  doctrines  not  mentioned  nor  hinted  at  during  the  administration 
of  baptism  are  required  as  essential  terms  of  her  communion. 

S 


206 

that  sacred  deposit  committed  to  the  Christian  Church, 
which  she  is  commanded  to  preserve,  but  not  authorized 
to  alter.  "  The  Church  of  Christ."  says  Vincent  of  Lerins, 
**  being  a  diligent  and  cautioys  guardian  of  the  tenets  de- 
posited with  her,  changes  nothing  in  them,  abridges  nothing, 
adds  nothing — but  earnestly  applies  herself  to  this  one 
thing,  that  by  discussing  ancient  matters  with  fidelity  and 
wisdom,  she  may  perfect  and  polish  such  as  are  rude  and 
unfinished,  establish  and  consolidate  such  as  are  explicit 
and  obvious,  and  preserve  such  as  are  confirmed  and  de- 
fined."* Thus  far  Church  authority  may  go,  and  no  far- 
ther. It  is  not  allowed  to  announce  new  doctrines  to  the 
faithful,  but  only  to  elucidate  such  as  may  appear  obscure, 
to  offer  fresh  arguments  to  such  as  seem  to  want  them  ;  it 
merely  determines  if  it  be  convenient  or  necessary  to  ex- 
press some  doctrine  in  terms  more  explicit  and  intelligi- 
ble."j"  Upon  this  principle  only  does  Vincent  defend  the 
ancient  councils.  That  of  Nice,  says  he,  did  nothing  more 
than  recall  the  faithful  to  the  primitive  belief:  ad  antiquam 
fidem  a  novella  pei'Jidid^  ad  antiquam  sanitatem  a  nomtatis 
insania-X  With  respect  to  the  Novatian  heresy,  the  coun- 
cil proceeded  on  the  same  luminous  principle.  It  showed 
their  doctrine  to  be  opposite  to  this  primitive  article  of  the 
creed,  "I  believe  the  forgiveness  of  sins."  The  rebapti- 
zation  of  infants  was  a  point  of  discipline  it  had  a  right  to 
pronounce  upon.  And  the  forbidding  of  second  marriages 
(or  indeed  any  marriages  at  all)  had  already  been  stigma- 
tized as  the  doctrine  of  devils.  (I  Tim.  4.)  Were  the 
Chaplain  at  leisure,  he  could  venture  to  prove,  that  not  a 
single  error  was  condemned  by  the  primitive  Church,  but 
what  directly  or  indirectly  ran  counter  to  this  creed..  The 
Arians,  Socinians,  and  Unitarians  refuse  to  believe  in  Jesus 

*  f 'omn>on.  cap,  32. 

t  Eadem  tamen  quae  didicisti  ita  doce,  ut  cum  dicas  nove  non  dicas  nov<x. 
Vine.  Ler.  Com.  cap.  27. 
i  Vine  liCr.  Comra.  cap,  7. 


307 

Christ,  by  denying  his  divinity  and  consubstantiality  with 
the  Father :  on  the  same  pretext,  the  Macedonians  would 
not  believe  in  the  Holy  Ghost :  the  Nestorians,  by  admitting 
two  persons  in  Christ,  denied  that  this  Man-God  was  born 
of  the  Virgin  Mary^  or  suffered  under  Pontius  Pilate :  the 
Eutychians,  by  confounding  the  divine  and  human  nature, 
must  either  reject  this  article,  "  I  believe  in  Jesus  Christ," 
which  shows  him  to  be  God ;  or  this,  "  he  was  crucified, 
dead,  and  buried,"  which  proves  him  to  be  man.  And  so  of 
all  the  rest.  If,  besides  these  primitive  truths  delivered  in 
the  Bible  and  abridged  in  the  creed,  other  matters  were  at 
times  deemed  sufficient  to  exclude  men  from  Catholic  com- 
munion, they  could  only  be  such  as  belonged  to  the  line  of 
morality  and  discipline,  to  which  Church  authority  has 
been  always  judged  competent ;  with  the  divine  truths  of 
religion  no  authority  must  meddle,  unless  it  be  to  elucidate, 
inculcate,  and  defend  them.  Such  as  are  essential  must  be 
obvious  and  simple,  being  mercifully  calculated  for  the  ig- 
norant no  less  than  the  learned.  They  who  reject  them 
must  do  it  at  their  peril.  But,  that  the  man  who  embraces 
these  truths  in  their  natural  meaning,  who  subscribes  the 
Catholic  creeds  in  their  utmost  extent,  and  assents  sincerely 
to  every  Scriptural  doctrine,  may  still  "  admit  into  his  be- 
lief dAmosi  every  sect  that  ever  deformed  the  face  of  Chris- 
tianity," is  one  of  those  lofty  assertions  that  thrills  the  un- 
informed mind  with  reverential  horror,  whilst,  with  a  man 
of  tolerable  understanding  and  conscious  integrity,  its  sole 
effect  is  a  transient  smile  of  indifference. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  is  unwilling  to  allow  the  Chaplain's 
claim  to  the  appellation  of  Catholic,  because,  to  be  so,  "  he 
must  belong,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  to  that  Church  which  is 
Catholic.^  and  which  is  called  Catholic  not  only  by  her  own 
children,  but  by  all  her  enemies.  Will  the  Chaplain,"  he 
asks,  "  find  this  characteristic  in  his  new  religion  1"  The 
Rev.  gentleman  knows  well,  that  Protestants  esteem  and 
call  themselves  Catholics.     For  an  enemy  to  withhold  from 


20S 

lliem  this  appellation  is  a  poor  plea  to  prescribe  against 
right.  Will  the  Rev.  gentleman  own  himself  to  have 
been  a  rebel,  because  for  more  than  eight  years  he  was  pro- 
nounced to  be  so  by  the  enemies  of  his  country  ?  As  to 
the  Chaplain's  new  religion,- were  it  really  such,  it  would 
doubtless  exclude  his  claim  to  the  title  he  assumes.  But 
he  trusts,  a  religion  can  hardly  be  called  new,  which  rests 
entirely  upon  the  foundations  of  primitive  revelation,  which 
can  trace  all  its  tenets  to  the  "law  and  to  the  testimony," 
and  is  so  jealous  of  these  divine  sources,  as  to  suffer  no 
vague  and  arbitrary  traditions  to  mix  their  sullied  waters 
with  their  original  fountain  :  a  religion  which  includes  the 
daily  profession  of  believing  a  Catholic  Church :  a  religion 
which  no  one  but  a  Catholic  can  profess,  as  he  alone  ad- 
heres solely  to  the  ancient  and  universal  belief.  "  For," 
says  Vincent  of  Lerins,  "  he  is  a  real  and  genuine  Catholic, 
who  .  .  .  remaining  fixed  and  unshaken  in  faith,  is  deter- 
mined to  hold  and  believe  that  only,  which  he  shall  disco- 
ver  to  be  the  universal  and  ancient  doctrine  of  the  Catholic 
Church."*  The  Rev.  gentleman  finds  that  the  Chaplain 
also  is  acquainted  with  Vincent  of  Lerins.  He  had  read 
him  over  previously  to  the  friendly  advice  contained  in  the 
address.  If,  in  the  eleventh  chapter,  he  appear  to  contra- 
dict the  general  principle  of  his  work,  which  goes  to  prove, 
*'  that  we  are  not  obliged  to  believe  any  doctrine,  which  was 
not  always  believed  by  the  Catholic  Church,"  to  them  it 
belongs  to  vindicate  his  consistency,  whose  cause  may 
stand  most  in  need  of  his  support :  his  authority  can  be  no 
further  serviceable  to  the  Chaplain,  than  to  show  what  his 
idea  of  a  Catholic  was,  and  that,  were  he  living  at  this  day, 
he  would  hardly  have  rejected  a  pica  to  Catholicity  found- 
ed upon  his  own  definition  of  it :  "  To  this,"  says  he,  "  we 
must  chiefly  attend,  that  we  maintain  what  every  where  and 
always  has  been  delivered  by  all :  for  this  is  truly  and  pro- 

*  Common,  cap.  25- 


209 

perly  Catholic,  as  the  very  word  imports  and  reason  de- 
clares."* And  again,  "  It  never  was  lawful,  it  is  not  law- 
ful now,  nor  will  it  ever  be  so,  to  propose  any  thing  to 
Christian  Catholics,  which  they  had  not  received  before. "f 
The  Chaplain,  therefore,  still  humbly  confides,  that  by  ad- 
hering solely  to  this  universal  belief,  he  is  justly  entitled 
to  the  appellation  of  Catholic,  and  that  he  "  does  not  em- 
brace a  new  religion,  however  he  may  discard  some  doc- 
trines which  at  different  periods  of  time  have  been  engraft- 
ed upon  the  old  one.'' 

But  with  the  Rev.  gentleman  and  all  Roman  Catholics,  a 
separation  from  this  Church  necessarily  involves  the  idea  of 
novelty.  "Where  was  your  religion  before  Luther?"  is 
the  triumphant  question  of  every  smatterer  in  controversy. 
"  Where  was  your  face  before  it  was  washed  ?"  was  the 
witty  counter-question  of  a  Protestant  humorist.  The 
truth  is,  the  Chaplain's  Church  was  always  where  it  actually 
subsists  ;  that  is,  in  every  part  of  the  world,  where  the 
ancient  foundations  and  the  common  principles  of  faith 
were  maintained,  upon  the  profession  of  which  men  were 
admitted  by  baptism  into  the  Church  of  God.  There  he 
doubts  not  but  our  Lord  has  his  subjects  and  he  his  fellow 
servants — for  the  Church  to  which  he  belongs  introduces 
no  new  faith — she  is  no  new  Church.  What  in  ancient 
times  was  deemed  to  be  truly  and  properly  Catholic,  name- 
ly, v/hat  was  believed  every  where,  always,  and  hy  all,  has 
in  succeeding  ages  been  constantly  preserved,  and  is  at 
this  day  adopted  entirely  by  this  Church.  If  we  should 
take  a  view  at  present  of  the  several  Christian  societies 
which  have  acquired  any  considerable  extent  upon  the 
globe,  of  the  reformed  and  Roman  Churches  in  Europe  and 
America,  of  the  Churches  of  Egypt  and  Ethiopia  in  the 
south,  of  the  Greek  and  other  Christian  societies  in  the 

*  Contra  hsres.  cap.  3. 

t  Annunciare  ergo  aliquid  Christianis  Catholicis  praeter  id  quod  accepe- 
ruut  minquara  Ucuit,  nusquam  licet,  nunquam  licebit    Comm.  cap.  H 

8  2 


210 

east ;  if  we  should  set  aside  the  points  >n  which  they  mu- 
tually dissent,  and  collect  together  the  other  articles  in 
which  they  generally  agree,  we  should  soon  discover  a  code 
of  doctrine  so  genuine  and  catholic,  that  being  joined  to  a 
suitable  line  of  conduct,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  conduct 
us  to  everlasting  salvation.  These  are  the  only  truths 
that  bear  the  stamp  of  universality — From  these  alone  can 
the  Church  be  called  Catholic — These  she  must  ever  re- 
tain, or  she  forfeits  her  title.  The  enemy  may,  indeed, 
sow  his  tares  among  these  original  tenets  ;  nay,  we  are 
told,  (Matth.  xiii.  24,  25,)  that  he  may  sow  them  in  the 
Lord's  jield^  and  among  the  Lord's  wheat.  They,  there- 
fore, who  have  been  employed  in  destroying  these  weeds, 
in  separating  the  Lord's  good  grain  from  the  chaff,  cannot 
be  said  to  have  substituted  a  new  field,  or  changed  the  na- 
ture of  the  ancient  grain.  The  field  is  the  same,  but 
weeded  now,  unweeded  then — the  grain  is  the  same,  but 
winnowed  now,  unwinnowed  then.  Every  Church,  pro- 
fessing these  universal  truths,  must  be  Catholic.  To  her 
belong  the  promises  of  Christ,  the  appeals  of  antiquity,  and 
the  encomiums  of  the  fathers.  She  suflers  no  monopoly  of 
her  extensive  prerogatives  ;  but  embraces  every  Christian 
who  adheres  to  the  foundations  upon  which  she  is  built. 

To  this  Christian  Catholic  Church  the  Chaplain  trusts 
he  belongs.  Happily  for  him,  no  society  of  Christians  can 
annul  his  right  to  this  sacred  communion  ;  among  the  va- 
rious Churches,  into  which  Christians  are  divided,  he  may 
join  that  which  best  suits  his  ideas  of  Church  government, 
and  which  appears  to  him  to  be  the  farthest  removed  from 
philosophical  indifference  on  the  one  hand,  and  fanaticism 
on  the  other  ;  but  in  the  great  and  essential  points  of  faith 
he  shall  ever  consider  himself  a  member  of  all  whose  reli- 
gion is  that  of  the  Bible  only.  Here  the  Chaplain  has 
found  a  resting-place,  which  he  never  means  to  abandon. 
If  Roman  Catholics  conceive  b.  double  foundation  more  se- 
cure, in  God's  name  let  them  build  their  religion  upon  it : 


211 

no  man  will  dispute  their  right  so  to  do;  but  let  them,  at 
the  same  time,  bear  cheerfully  with  those,  who  are  satisfied 
that  their  faith  is  safe  upon  one. 

The  Rev.  gentleman  is  surprised  at  the  quotation  from 
St.  Cyprian,  which  discountenances  all  authority  in  matters 
of  faith,  except  that  of  the  Gospel,  the  Epistles,  or  Acts  of 
the  Apostles,  "  No  wonder,"  says  he,  *'  that  St.  Cyprian, 
while  engaged  in  the  errors  of  the  Donatists,  should  speak 
their  language  ...  .St.  Augustin,  lib.  5.  cap.  23.  de  bap. 
against  the  Donatists,  particularly  refutes  the  writing  now 
objected  out  of  St.  Cyprian  ;  and  it  is  wonderful  indeed  if 
the  Chaplain  did  notdiscover  this  in  the  very  place  from  which 
I  presume  he  copied  his  objection."  Here  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man confesses  that  Cyprian  was  unacquainted  with  the  divine 
authority  of  unwritten  tradition.  Mr.  Rushworth,  a  Roman 
Catholic  controvertist,  had  acknowledged  this  long  before.* 
He  should  have  proved,  however,  that  this  learned  martyr 
retracted  his  opinion,  before  he  wondered  at  the  Chaplain's 
omitting  the  refutation  of  it  penned  by  St.  Augustin. 
When  the  primitive  fathers  deliver  contrary  opinions,  we 
are  certainly  at  liberty  to  adopt  that  which  appears  most 
rational.  But  St.  Augustin  himself  only  combated  this 
sentiment  of  Cyprian,  upon  the  subject  of  rebaptization  of 
infants,  which  he  must  have  regarded  as  belonging  rather 
to  Church  discipline  than  io  faith  ;  for,  with  respect  to  the 
latter,  no  man  was  a  stronger  advocate  for  the  all-sufficiency 
of  the  Scriptures.  He  tells  us,  indeed,  "  that  he  would  not 
believe  the  Gospel,  if  the  authority  of  the  Catholic  Church 
did  not  move  him  thereunto."  In  this  sentiment,  the 
Chaplain  willingly  acquiesces,  because  he  believes  the 
Church  to  be  the  keeper  and  depositary  of  the  Scriptures; 
and  because,  from  the  perpetual  and  uniform  consent  of  all 
the  Churches,  the  credibility  of  their  canonical  authority 
must  arise.     But  the  Church  derives  from  hence  no  plea  to 

*  Dial.  3.  sect.  13. 


212 

infallibility,  any  more  than  our  judges  or  courts  of  judica* 
ture,  by  determining  what  is  the  fixed  law  of  the  land,  and 
the  only  books  that  contain  it,  can  arrogate  to  themselves 
so  mighty  a  privilege. 

The  Chaplain  asks,  (and  he  does  it  with  St.  Hilary,  whom 
the  Rev.  gentleman  passes  by  without  notice,)  "  where  is 
the  deficiency  and  obscurity  of  the  Scriptures?"  That  is, 
in  matters  fundamental  and  necessary.  For,  were  they 
really  deficient,  how  would  they  "  be  able  to  make  us  wise 
unto  salvation?"  as  the  Apostle  expressly  assures  us  they 
are.  (2  Tim.  3.)  Nor  is  any  attempt  made  to  do  away  the 
authority  of  Cyril,  lib.  12  in  Joan.,  who  tells  us,  that  "  all 
is  written  which  the  writers  thought  sufficient  for  faith  and 
morality."  Was  the  credit  of  this  father  entitled  to  special 
indulgence,  because  on  another  subject  his  authority  is 
deemed  unanswerable?  But  it  was  indeed  needless  to 
take  notice  of  a  line  or  two,  if  "  most  of  the  fathers  have 
delivered  their  opinions  of  the  insufficiency  and  obscurity 
of  Scripture,  not  in  fragments  of  a  sentence,  but  treating 
professedly  and  fully  on  this  very  subject."  It  has  been 
the  Chaplain's  misfortune  never  to  meet  with  any  of  these 
numerous  treatises.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  fathers,  whom 
he  has  consulted  on  this  head,  repeatedly  acknowledge  the 
sufficiency  of  Scripture  in  whatever  belongs  to  faith  and 
morality.  If  in  other  passages  of  their  writings  they  deny 
this  sufficiency,  we  should  do  well  to  discard  their  autho- 
rity altogether,  and  be  influenced  only  by  our  sentiments, 
our  reason,  and  the  Bible.  However,  the  venerable  writers 
of  antiquity  are  too  explicit  on  this  matter  to  labour  under 
a  similar  reproach.  The  few  following  passages  will  suf- 
fice to  ascertain   their  notions  on  this   subject "  The 

holy  Scriptures  given   by  the  inspiration  of  God,  are   of 

themselves  sufficient  to  the  discovery  of  truth."* "  The 

things  which  we  find  not  in  the  Scripture,  how  can  we  use 

*  St  Athan.  contra.  Gentea. 


213 

them  ?"* "  It  is  well  that  thou  art  content  with  the  things 

that  are  written. "f — In  another  place  St.  Hilary  commends 
the  Emperor  Constantius  for  "desiring  the  faith  to  be  or- 
dered only  according  to  those  things  that  are  written.":j: 
"Believe  the  things  that  are  written,"  says  St.  Basil,  "  the 
things  that  are  not  written  seek  not.§  ...  It  is  a  manifest 
falling  from  the  faith,  and  a  sign  of  arrogance,  either  to  re- 
ject any  point  of  those  things  that  are  written,  or  to  bring 
in  any  of  those  things  that  are  not  written. '*||  Gregory  of 
Nyssen,  brother  to  St.  Basil,  lays  it  down  as  a  principle, 
"  which  no  man  should  contradict,  that  the  truth  must  be 
acknowledged  in  that  only  which  exhibits  the  seal  of  Scrip- 
lure  testimony. "IT "  As  we  deny  not  those  things  that 

are  written,  so  we  reject  those  things  that  are  not  written."** 
And  again :  "  That  which  has  no  authority  from  Scripture 

is  as  easily  discarded  as  it  is  advanced. "tt "  In  those 

particulars,"  says  St.  Augustin,  "  which  are  clearly  set 
down  in  the  Scriptures,  all  tJiose  things  are  found  which 

comprehend  faith  and  direction  of  life.":j::j: And  again  : 

"whatsoever  ye  hear  from  hence,  (the  holy  Scriptures,)  let 
that  relish  well  with  you ;  whatsoever  is  without  them  re- 
ject, lest  ye  wander  in   a  cloud. "§§ And   in   another 

place  :  "  All  those  things  which  in  times  past  our  ancestors 
have  recorded  as  done  to  mankind,  and  have  delivered 
down  to  us,  all  those  things  also  which  we  see  and  deliver 
to  our  posterity,  so  far  as  they  belong  to  the  investigation 
and  support  of  true  religion,  the   holy  Scripture  has  not 

passed  over  in  silence. "||11 It  remains  to  say  a  word  or 

two  of  a  passage  to  the  same  effect,  which  the  Chaplain  in 
his  letter  cited  from  St.  Chrysostom.  In  Matt,  c.  24,  horn, 
49.     It  is  not  in  his  power  to  have  recourse  to  the  works 

*  St.  Ambros.  offic.  lib.  1,  cap.  23.  t  Hil.  lib.  3.  de  Trin,  t  Hil.  lib  2.  ad 
Conslan.  Aug.  §  Basil  hom.  29.  advers.  calumnianles  S.  Trinitat.  ||  Idem 
de  fide.  IT  Greg.  Nyss.  dialog,  de  aniraa  et  resur.  torn.  1.  edit.  Graeco-Lat.  p. 
639.  **  Hieronynius  advers.  Helvid.  tt  Idem  in  cap.  23.  Matt,  tt  De 
doctr.  Christiana  lib.  2.  cap.  9.    $^  Lib.  de  pastor,  cap.  11.    |1||  Epist.  43. 


214 

of  this  father.  And  as  the  Rev.  gentleman  says,  he  has 
tlie  fullest  evidence  before  him  that  the  passsge  is  not  ge- 
nuine, but  extracted  from  a  work  of  no  credit,  supposed  to 
he  written  in  the  6th  century,  entitled,  The  unfinished  work 
on  Matthew;  the  Chaplain  will  readily  acknowledge  his 
mistake,  and  yet,  perhaps,  not  expose  himself  to  a  icell- 
grounded  imputation  of  unpardonable  negligence.  For,  in 
the  first  place,  the  passage  is  certainly  published  among  the 
works  of  Chrysoslom,  and  therefore  it  was  very  natural  to 
suppose  it  was  his :  Secondly,  Gratian,  the  great  canonist, 
frequently  cites  St.  Chrysostom  as  the  author  of  this  unfi- 
nished xcork.^'  Thirdly,  Bellarmine  himself  does  not  seem 
quite  decided  on  this  point — He  only  says,  "  This  work 
does  not  appear  to  be  Chrysostom'' s  ;  however,  in  other  re- 
spects, it  is  a  learned  book,  and  by  no  means  to  be  despised. 
It  is,  therefore,  probable,  that  the  author  of  it  was  a  Catho- 
lic, but  that  his  work  was  corrupted  by  the  Arians."t  If 
this  apology  be  not  sufficient  to  wipe  away  "  the  reproach 
of  a  want  of  impartial  diligence,  and  the  disrepute  of  al- 
leging the  authority  of  Chrysostom  so  erroneously,"  the 
Chaplain  will  pardon  a  triumph  at  this  slight  inaccuracy,  as 
it  is  the  only  one  pointed  out  in  the  Address. 

The  Chaplain  has  now  to  thank  the  Rev.  gentleman  for 
the  important  advice  with  which  he  closes  his  Address. 
Had  it  come,  however,  from  any  other  quarter,  it  would 
have  been  regarded  as  an  insult,  and  treated  as  such.  It 
would  have  appeared  a  premeditated  design  "  to  misinform, 
and  to  sow  in  minds  so  misinformed  the  seeds  of  religious 
animosity."  But  the  Chaplain  will  not  harbour  a  suspicion 
of  such  intentions  in  a  man  whom  he  cherishes  with  all  the 
ardour  of  friendship.     Yet  he  cannot  help  thinking  that 

*  Plurimis  in  locis  Gratianus  citat  Chrysostomum  pro  auctore  operis  im- 
perfecli,    Bell,  de  Scrip.  Eccles.  p.  321. 

t  Non  videlur  esse  Chrysostomi  .  .  .  quamvis  alioqui  liber  sit  doctus  et 
minime  spcrnendus  .  .  .  proindo  credibile  est  auctorom  fiiisse  cathoiicum, 
sod  opus  illius  ab  Arianis  esse  depravaturn.     Idem  ibid.  p.  161. 


215 

the  Rev.  gentleman  has  misapplied  St.  Chrysostorri's  adtice 
to  his  case.  For  did  the  monk  Theodorus  enter  into  his 
engagements  under  the  sanction  of  an  authority  which  he 
afterwards  thought  himself  at  liberty  to  discard?  Did  he 
know,  when  he  promised  to  lead  a  single  life  as  a  monk, 
that  the  bishop  of  Rome  could  at  any  time  release  him  from 
this  vow,  and  permit  him  to  marry  the  beautiful  Hermione  ? 
Did  this  bishop  actually  do  so?  Did  he  annul  all  his  mo- 
nastic engagements?  Was  this  monk  ever  promoted  to  the 
order  of  sub-deaconship,  at  which  time  only  the  law  of  ce- 
libacy is  hinted  to  the  regular  clergy  ?  Did  he  conceive  this 
exhortation  of  the  bishop  during  that  ceremony,  castitatem 
serva?'e  oportet,  you  must  live  chastly*  to  imply  a  solemn 
vow  never  to  marry  ?  Or,  if  he  viewed  it  in  this  light,  could 
he  still  be  bound  by  this  point  of  discipline,  after  the  au- 
thority enacting  it  ceased  to  exist  in  his  regard  ?  When 
these  several  questions  can  be  answered  in  the  affirmative, 
then  may  a  parrallcl  be  drawn  between  this  monk  and  the 
Chaplain.  Moreover,  let  the  Rev.  gentleman  inform  us 
whether  a  vow  of  celibacy  be  a  stronger  engagement  or 
contract  with  Almighty  God,  than  a  vow  of  perpetual  po- 
verty and  obedience.  Let  him  tell  us,  why  one  is  more  in- 
dependent of  the  discipline  of  any  binding  power  than  the 
other — Why,  one  more  then  the  other,  "  cannot  be  released 
but  by  God's  relinquishing  his  right  to  exact  a  rigorous 
compliance  with  the  obligation  of  it."  The  begging  friars 
imagine  that  a  solemn  renunciation  of  all  property  is  the 
height  of  perfection,  whilst  the  vow  of  obedience  was  chiefly 
preconized  by  the  Jesuits.  Yet,  by  a  dispensation 
from  papal  authority,  thousands  of  both  have  been  re- 
leased from  their  most  solemn  vows,  and  restored  to  the  en- 
joyment of  property  and  freedom.  Among  these  is  the  Rev. 
gentleman  himself,  and  his  clerical  brethren  in  America. 
After  renewing  twice  every  year,  and  oftcner,  the  solemn 

*  Rit.  Rom. 


216 

vows,  by  which  they   renounce  their  property  and  their 
liberty,  each  of  them,  without  scruple,  now  possesses,  inhe- 
rits, enjoys,  and  disposes  of  the  goods  of  this  world,  and 
acknowledges  no  longer  the  spiritual  control  of  a  superior. 
The  same  dispensing  authority  can  at  any  time  restore  to 
them  the  disposal  of  their  persons,  and  allow  them  to  marry. 
Wherefore,  to  urge  "  that  the  sanctity  of  religion  is  inte- 
rested in  the  performance  of  an  agreement,"  entered  into 
under  an  authority  which  at  any  time  can  annul  it,  is  mak- 
ing that  sanctity  to  depend  upon  the  caprice  of  an  intrigu- 
ing court,  or  "  the  views  of  an  artful  and  temporizing  pon- 
tiff:" and  seriously  to  plead  for  the  obligation  of  ritual  ties, 
when  the  power  that  enacts  and  dissolves  them  is  no  more, 
is  to  nourish  the  prejudices  of  the  uninformed,  to  bewil- 
der the   argument,  and  perpetuate  the  spirit  of  illiberal 
cavil  .  *  .  The  passage  cited  from  the  book  of  Deuterono- 
my, with  which  the  Rev.  gentleman  concludes  his  address, 
is  calculated  to  leave  these  impressions  on  the  mind.     But 
the  reader  will  recollect  that  all  Roman  Catholic  divines 
maintain  in  practice,  "  that  any  vow  upon  certain  occasions 
may  be  lawfully  rescinded.     Their  bishops  may  dispense 
with  many,  the  pope  with  all.     Nay,  the  faculties  which 
are  granted  to  the  missionaries  in  England,  empower  them 
to  dispense  tvith,  for  a  reasonable  cause,  and  change,  all 
simple  vows,  excepting  those  of  continency  and  religion, 
which  are  reserved  to  Home.''''     (Essay  on  Celib.  p.  184.) 
Wherefore,  as  the  Ciiaplain  means  to  have  no  business  with 
Rome,  he  shall  take  the  liberty  of  judging  for  himself  in 
this  particular.     It  is  really  painful  to  be  thus  pleading  the 
cause  of  human  nature  and  its  unalienable  rights,  in  the 
eighteenth  century,  on  the  continent  of  America:  rights 
interwoven  with  the  economy  of  our  nature,  calculated  to 
promote  the  welfare  of  the  individual,  and  the  great  pur- 
poses of  society.  Rights  which  mankind  are  not  authorized 
to  sport  with,  any  more  than  with  the  principle  of  self-pre- 
servation or  life.     The  recovery  of  these  essential  preroga- 


117 

lives  of  humanity,  will  be  deemed  a  substantial  blessing,  by 
every  liberal  person ;  if,  however,  it  provoke  any  censure 
from  his  former  connexions,  the  Chaplain,  having  once  ap- 
pealed to  their  candour  and  charity,  shall  continue  to  treat 
it  with  pity  and  indifference.  "JEquo  animo  audienda 
sunt  imperitorum  convicia,  et  ad  honesta  vadenti  contem- 
nendus  est  ipse  contemptus."     Seneca. 

Before  the  Chaplain  takes  ^  final  leave  of  the  public  on 
these  matters,  which  he  very  sincerely  wishes  to  do  at  pre- 
sent, he  must  beg  its  attention  for  a  moment  to  the  most 
material  accusation  thrown  out  in  the  address.  He  is  ac- 
cused of  "  imputing  doctrines  to  the  Roman  Catholics 
foreign  to  their  belief,  and  having  a  natural  tendency  to 
embitter  against  them  the  minds  of  their  fellow  citizens.'' 
He  is  accused  of  "  misinforming,  and  of  sowing  in  minds  so 
misinformed  the  seeds  of  religious  animosity.'^  The  Rev. 
gentleman  could  not  have  wounded  his  former  friend  in  a 
more  tender  part.  At  such  an  attack  he  also  felt  an  an- 
guisli  too  Iceenfor  description — for  such  accusations  coming 
from  him,  must  extinguish  every  spark  of  good  will  towards 
the  Chaplain,  which  may  still  be  lurking  among  his  former 
connexions.  They  go  to  alienate  the  esteem  of  his  recent 
friends,  by  holding  him  up  as  a  disturber  of  the  public  peace, 
as  an  enemy  to  his  country.  Did  the  Rev.  gentleman  per- 
ceive the  natural  tendency  of  such  a  censure,  or  could  he 
think  the  Chaplain  deserved  it?  The  Rev.  gentleman 
might  have  known  him  better.  There  was  a  time  when  he 
honoured  him  with  his  confidence  and  esteem,  when  he 
condescended  to  become  the  depositary  of  liis  little  con- 
cerns. At  an  early  period  of  life,  he  kindly  took  him  by 
the  hand,  and  led  him  through  the  paths  of  honour  and  of 
virtue:  his  lessons  were  always  those  of  friendship  and  of 
wisdom  ;  from  these  flowed  that  sentiment  o{  universal  be- 
nevolence which  the  Chaplain  deems  the  most  precious  he 
possesses.  Could  the  Rev.  gentleman  be  ignorant  of  the 
growth  of  a  plant,  which  he  himself  had  nourished  in  the 

T 


118 

heart  of  his  friend,  and  which  he  must  have  observed  to 
flourish  there,  with  a  luxuriancy  nearly  approaching  to  en- 
thusiasm. ...  It  was  this  sentiment  that  banished  every 
word  from  his  letter  which  could  wound  the  feelings  of  the 
most  delicate  Roman  Catholic  :  this  made  him  distinguish 
between  their  persons  and  opinions,  and  prevented  a  dere- 
liction of  some  of  the  latter,  from  impairing  the  social  affec- 
tions which  he  cherished  for  the  former.  Far  from  wishing 
to  "  sow  the  seeds  of  religious  animosity  in  the  minds  of 
his  countrymen,"  he  would  make  any  sacrifice  to  eradicate 
them  for  ever  :  far  from  wishing  "  to  embitter  the  minds 
of  their  fellow  citizens  against  the  Roman  Catholics  of 
America,"  he  is  proud  to  see  them  elevated  to  that  equal 
respectability,  to  which,  as  zealous  supporters  of  their 
country's  freedom,  and  as  a  Christian  society,  they  are 
essentially  entitled  :  far  from  harbouring  any  religious  ani- 
mosity or  narrowness  of  sentiment,  he  only  wishes  for  op- 
portunities to  show  how  much  he  despises  them  :  far  from 
abandoning  the  cause  of  virtue  and  religion,  as  the  Address 
seems  to  insinuate,  he  means  to  exert  his  slender  abilities 
and  consummate  the  course  of  his  ministry  in  the  service  of 
both — thrice  happy,  if  the  profession  of  the  common  princi- 
ples of  Christianity,  and  a  perfect  union  of  heart,  could  be 
deemed  sufficient  by  the  Rev.  gentlemnn,  to  perpetuate 
their  connexion  in  so  noble  a  pursuit.  Such  are  the  immu- 
table sentiments  of  the  Chaplain.  Whether  his  letter,  or 
this  reply,  tend  to  counteract  or  confirm  them,  it  belongs 
to  the  candid  reader  to  determine. 


^-. 


A 

SHORT   ANSWER 

TO 

«  A  TRUE  EXPOSITION 

OF  THE 

DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

TOUCHING  THE 

SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE, 

WITH  THE 
OROUNDS  ON  WHICH  THIS  DOCTRINE  IS  FOUNDED," 

CONTAINED  IN 

AN    APPENDIX 

TO 

THE  CATHOLIC  QUESTION 

DECIDED  IN  THE  CITY  OF  NEW-YORK,  IN  JULY,  1813. 


BY  CHARLES  H.  WHARTON,  D.  D. 

Rector  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  Burlington,  N.  J. 


NEW-YORK  :   REPUBLISHED  BV  DAVID  LONGWORTH,  1817. 


PHILADELPHIA  :   WILLIAM  STAVELY,  1834. 


Who  is  a  God  like  unto  thee,  that  pardoneth  iniquity  ?  Mich.  vii.  18. 

I  said,  I  will  confess  my  sins  unto  the  Lord;  and  so  thou  forgavest  the 
wickedness  of  my  sin.    Ps.  xxxii.  6. 

And  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees  began  to  reason,  saying,  Who  is  this  which 
speaketh  blasphemies?  Who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone?  Luke  v.  21. 

"  Non  potest  hoc  cuiquam  hominum  cum  Christo  esse  commune  ut  peccata 
condonet." 

"  No  man  can  have  this  in  common  with  Christ,  that  he  may  forgive  sins." 

St.  Ambros.  epist.  76.  ad  Studium. 


TO 


THE  RIGHT  REVEREND  THE  BISHOPS, 


THE 


REVEREND  THE  CLERICAL. 


AND 


THE  GENTLEMEN  LAY  DEPUTIES 


OF 


THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 

GENERAL  CONVENTION  ASSEMBLED, 

THIS  ANSWER 

IS  RESPECTFULLY  INSCRIBED^ 
BY  THEIR  AFFECTIONATE  HUMBLE  SERVANT  AND  BROTHKR, 

THE  AUTHOR. 


T  2 


A   SHORT   ANSWER. 


At  a  time  when  the  spirit  of  religious  controversy  seemed 
to  be  dormant  in  our  land — when  the  different  Christian 
societies  were  convinced  of  the  delicate  propriety  of  con- 
fining the  enforcement  of  their  peculiar  tenets  within  the 
pale  of  their  own  communions— when  the  few  theological 
publications  now  circulating  among  us  were  labouring  to 
inculcate  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  our  common  Chris- 
tianity, and  on  them  to  erect  a  goodly  system  of  mutual 
forbearance,  harmony  and  love — the  advocates  of  evangeli- 
cal charity  beheld,  with  considerable  regret,  the  appearance 
of  a  pamphlet  calculated  to  diminish  the  influence  and  dis- 
turb the  serenity  of  this  heavenly  temper.  Had  the  pub- 
lisher of  the  Catholic  Question  been  satisfied  with  com- 
municating to  us  the  issue  of  that  interesting  trial,  which 
every  liberal  mind  must  approve  and  applaud ;  had  he  con- 
fined himself  to  the  gratifying  of  his  readers  with  a  display 
of  eloquent  and  ingenious  declamation,  and  irresistible  ar- 
gument, although  on  a  subject  which  never  admitted  of  a 
doubt ;  nay,  had  he  annexed  to  the  account  of  this  trial 
an  exposition  of  his  creed,  as  adopted  and  enforced  by  the 
council  of  Trent,  unaccompanied  with  any  illiberal  reflec- 
tions upon  those  who  pay  little  regard  to  that  council's  de- 
nunciations or  decrees,  the  writer  of  this  reply  would  never 
have  thought  himself  authorized  to  question  a  right  to  in- 
struct the  members  of  his  Church  in  the  tenets  of  their  re- 
ligion, or  to  throw  over  them  fresh  lights  to  demonstrate 
their  truth. 

But  the  reverend  author  of  the  Appendix  (for  I  suppose 
him  to  be  such)  has  manifestly  seized  upon  what  he  con- 
ceived to  be  a  favourable  opportunity  to  lay  his  doctrines 
before  the  public,  still  alive  to  some  favourable  impressions. 


224 

from  the  recent  decision  of  liis  cause,  with  an  air  of  tri- 
umph bordering  upon  insult,  with  a  tone  of  defiance  point- 
ing to  intimidation. 

He  enters  upon  his  exposition  by  boldly  asserting,  as 
"an  undeniable  fact,  and  which  our  adversaries,"  says  he, 
"  have  but  too  well  known,  that  the  Catholic  doctrine  can 
never  be  attacked  with  any  success,  but  by  misrepresenta- 
tion ;  and  that  it  wants  only  to  be  known  to  obtain  the  suf- 
frages of  upright  men,  and  to  silence  the  most  inveterate 
of  its  enemies. 

Here  the  reverend  author  begins  by  indulging  a  spirit  of 
illiberality,  which,  it  seems,  all  the  candour  of  his  pro- 
testant  advocates,  all  the  enlightened  justice  of  his  pro- 
testant  judge,  had  not  been  able  to  allay.  He  confidently 
throws  down  the  gauntlet,  and  looks  around  him,  either  for 
resistance  or  submission.  Silence  on  the  part  of  Protes- 
tants, although  deemed  by  some  advisable  on  this  occasion, 
mi^^ht  probably  flatter  the  Rev.  gentleman  and  his  adhe- 
rents with  an  idea  of  the  latter;  and  as  one  of  his  learned 
advocates,  although  a  Protestant,  has  been  induced  to  as- 
sert, that  "the  Catholic,"  meaning  clearly  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic, "religion  has  existed  for  eighteen  centuries,  and 
that  the  sacrament  of  penance  has  existed  with  it;"  (Cath. 
Ques.  p.  26 ;)  there  are  solid  grounds  for  seriously  appre- 
hending, lest  some  persons  not  so  well  informed  as  the 
learned  counsellor,  may  be  seduced  into  his  opinion,  and 
into  other  unfounded  doctrines  contained  in  the  Appendix. 

The  taste  for  religious  controversy  has,  in  great  measure, 
gone  by;  yet  still,  when  opinions  by  many  deemed  erro- 
neous are  forced  upon  the  public  eye,  by  a  great  parade  of 
erudition,  and  a  hardihood  of  assertion  smiling  contemptu- 
ously at  contradiction;  when  the  teachers  of  any  Christian 
Church  presume  rashly  to  pronounce,  that  "in  her  bosom 
only,  man  can  enjoy  the  precious  advantage  of  forgiveness 
of  sins  ;  that  she  is  the  true  Jerusalem,  in  which  the  trve 
temple  exists,  and  the  true  probatic  pond,  which  heals  all 


225 

sorts  of  diseases;  that  in  her  only  are  found  the  true  Jor-* 
dan,  which  cleansed  Naaman  and  his  leprosy  ;  that  she  is 
the  mysterious  inn,  in  which  the  true  Samaritan  effects  the 
cure  of  the  traveller,  whom  he  finds  wounded  in  the  road 
to  Jericho;"  I  say,  when  such  lofty  pretensions  as  these 
are  obtruded  upon  the  public,  it  cannot  be  expected  that 
they  will  pass  unnoticed  by  those  who  are  acquainted  with 
their  futility,  or  by  the  Christian  ministers  of  other  socie- 
ties, who  consider  themselves  intrusted  with  the  sacred  de- 
posite  of  religious  truth,  as  its  delegated  guardians. 

It  is  not  the  intention  of  this  reply  to  follow  the  reverend 
author  of  the  Appendix  into  the  extensive  fields  of  polemic 
cal  divinity,  which  he  has  laid  open  to  his  readers.  To 
the  avowed  design  of  proving  the  divine  institution  of  sa^ 
cramental  auricular  confession,  he  has  annexed  all  the 
hackneyed  and  well-known  arguments  in  favour  of  the  col- 
lateral tenets  of  the  Romish  Church.  Of  many  of  these 
no  notice  can  be  taken  in  a  short  pamphlet :  if,  however, 
they  should  disturb  the  belief  of  any  Protestant  reader, 
let  him  only  turn  to  some  of  the  most  eminent  writers  in 
defence  of  the  reformation,  which  every  library  furnishes; 
let  him  only  peruse  the  immortal  and  unanswerable  work 
of  Chillingworth,  entitled,  "  The  Religion  of  Protestants 
a  safe  way  to  Salvation,"  and  every  rising  doubt  and  diffi- 
culty will  be  quickly  dissipated. 

The  sole  object,  then,  of  this  reply  is  to  investigate  and 
refute,  as  briefly  as  possible,  the  arguments  alleged  in  the 
Appendix  in  support  of  the  divine  institution  of  auricular 
confession,  or  of  the  sacrament  of  penanee,  as  explained,  de- 
creed, and  enjoined  by  the  council  of  Trent.  In  doing 
this,  I  trust  it  will  be  shown,  first,  that  the  doctrine  of 
auricular  confession,  as  a  divinely  instituted  sacrament  of 
the  Christian  Church,  has  no  foundation  in  the  Scripture. 
Secondly,  that  this  doctrine  was  unknown  to  the  primitive 
Church ;  and  that  previously  to  the  thirteenth  century  it 


226 

had  never  been  enacted  into  an  article  of  faith  and  indis- 
pensable discipline. 

Thirdly,  That  neither  the  council  of  Lateran,  nor  the 
council  of  Trent,  nor  any  other  earthly  tribunal,  has  a 
right  to  impose  such  a  grievous  yoke  upon  the  faithful  from 
a  plea  to  infallibility  ;  as  this  plea  is  altogether  unsupported 
either  by  reason  or  revelation. 

The  reader  will  readily  perceive  that  whatever  can  be 
urged  in  answer  to  the  arguments  for  the  divine  institution 
of  auricular  confession,  must  be  comprehended  under  these 
three  heads:  he  will  see  no  necessity  of  following  the  Rev. 
gentleman  through  all  the  syllogistic  forms,  and  imposing 
arrangements  of  a  great,  but  irrelevant  mass  of  matter, 
which  frequently  perplex,  rather  than  elucidate  the  truth ; 
for  it  must  strike  every  mind  with  conviction,  that  a  reli- 
gious tenet,  which  is  founded  neither  on  Scripture,  univer- 
sal usage,  nor  competent  authority,  can  have  no  foundation 
at  all, 

PART  FIRST. 

"  The  doctrine  of  the   divine  institution   of  sacramental 
auricular  confession,  not  authorized  hy  Scripture^ 

Before  we  enter  on  the  proofs  of  this  assertion,  it  is  ne- 
cessary to  state  precisely,  in  what  consists  the  difference  of 
opinion  between  the  Protestant  and  Romish  Churches,  with 
respect  to  confession  of  sins:  accurate  notions  of  this  dis- 
agreement can  alone  enable  the  reader  to  perceive  the 
drift  of  the  arguments  that  follow.  This  difference  is 
fairly  stated  by  cardinal  Bellarmine,  and  will  not  be  ques- 
tioned by  the  author  of  the  Appendix.  "  Admittit  Calvinus 
generalem  confessionem  ;  admittit  etiam,  privatam,  coram 
pastore ;  sed  addit,  banc,  liberam  esse  debere,  nee  ab  om- 
nibus exigendam,  nee  cogendos  ad  enumeranda  omnia  pec- 
cata  praecepto  aliquo,  aut  arte  inducendos,  nisi  quoad  inte- 


227 

resse  sua  putabunt,  ut  solidum  consolationis  fiuctum  refer- 
ant."  (Bellar.  lib.  3.  de  PcBuit.  cap.  1.)  And,  "  in  this 
doctrine,"  says  he,  in  the  same  place,  "  all  Protestants 
agree,"  that  is,  all  Protestant  Churches  admit,  that  it  may 
be  occasionally  advisable  for  a  man  burthened  with  sin, 
to  lay  open  his  conscience  in  private  to  a  minister  of  God, 
and  to  seek  at  his  hands  the  aids  of  instruction,  and  the 
comfort  of  God's  pardon  :  but  they  contend,  at  the  same 
time,  that  such  private  confession  is  a  voluntary  act,  by  no 
means  to  be  considered  as  a  divine  institution,  and  an  in- 
dispensable obligation,  without  which,  no  remission  or  par- 
don of  sin  can  be  hoped  for  from  God,  as  the  council  of 
Trent  has  decreed  it  to  be  under  a  formidable  anathema, 
and  the  Romish  Church  professes  to  believe.* 

*  The  error  of  the  Romish  Church  concerning  penance  has  been  "probably 
strenglhened  by  a  misuse  of  the  Latin  term  ''  paenitentiam  agere."  It  is 
classical  Latin  for  _uiTuvci:v,  "  or  to  repent;"  but  the  expression  "  to  do  pen- 
ance," conveys  to  an  English  ear  a  very  different  sentiment  from  either; 
although  strictly  a  rendering  of  the  Latin  expression.  The  Douay  transla- 
tion says,  in  a  note  on  Matlhew  iii.  2,  that  the  Greek  word  is  used  in  Scrip- 
ture, and  by  the  Fathers,  for  the  sense  of  the  said  English  expression :  but 
this  may  safely  be  denied.  To  show  the  difference  of  meaning,  I  will  refer 
to  the  following  texts,  selected  out  of  many  in  the  Douay  translation.  It  has 
"Do  penance,"  in  Matthew  iii.  2, and  in  Acts  ii.  38,  and  indeed  generally. 
But  in  Luke  xvii.  3  and  4,  and  in  Acts  xi.  18,  the  incongruity  is  so  manifest, 
that  the  phraseology  is  varied  essentially.  In  the  former  passage,  the  re- 
pentance spoken  of,  is  an  act  of  justice  to  an  offended  brother.  In  the  latter 
it  is  descriptive  of  the  conversion  of  heathen  persons;  who,  on  the  principles 
of  the  opposite  system,  are  not  required  to  do  any  acts  comprehended  under 
the  name  of  penance,  in  the  usual  sense  of  the  word :  such  acts  being  re- 
stricted to  sins  after  baptism. 

The  verb  /uiruvt^iCD,  is  either  compounded  of /"tT*,  afler,  and  vouv,  to  under- 
stand, which  signifies,  that  afler  hearing  such  preaching,  the  sinner  is  led  to 
understand,  that  the  way  he  has  walked  in  was  the  way  of  misery,  death,  and 
hell.  Or  the  word  may  be  derived  from  ^.ira,  after,  and  auoia,  madness, 
which  intimates  that  the  whole  life  of  a  sinner  is  no  other  than  a  continued 
course  of  madness  nm\  folhj :  and  if  to  live  in  a  constant  opposition  to  all  the 
dictates  of  irue  wisdom  ;  to  wage  war  with  his  own  best  interests  in  time  and 
eternity;  to  provoke  and  insult  the  living  God;  and,  by  habitual  sin,  to  pre- 
pare himself  only  for  a  state  of  misery,  be  evidences  of  insanity,  every  sinner 
exhibits  them  plentifully.    It  was  from  this  notion  of  the  word,  that  the 


228 

Now  this  divine  institution  of  private,  or  auricular  confes- 
sion, and  its  absolute  necessity  for  the  remission  of  sins, 
are,  for  many  reasons,  rejected  from  the  creed  of  all  Pro- 
testants :  and  particularly,  because  they  cannot  discover 
these  doctrines  in  the  Scriptures.  They  consider,  and  so 
must  every  candid  inquirer  into  religious  truth,  that  if  a 
burthen  so  grievous  as  auricular  confession,  had  been  en- 
joined as  a  Christian  precept  in  the  Gospel,  it  would  have 
been  expressed  in  terms  the  most  explicit  and  convincing; 
in  phrases  at  least  as  imperative  and  unambiguous,  as  those 
which  imposed  the  heavy  yoke  of  the  law ;  a  yoke,  never- 
theless, light  and  pleasant,  when  compared  to  that  which 
has  since  been  fixed  upon  the  necks  of  Christians,  under 
the  mild  and  perfect  law  of  liberty  and  grace. 

The  passages  referred  to  by  the  Reverend  gentleman,  in 
support  of  the  divine  institution,  and  absolute  necessity  of 
auricular  sacramental  confession,  are  three  from  the  Evan- 
gelists, one  from  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  one  from  St. 
Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  and  the  last  from  the 
General  Epistle  of  St.  James.  On  each  of  these  a  few  ob- 
servations will  suffice  to  show,  that,  all  the  inajors  and  mi- 
nors of  the  Reverend  gentleman  notwithstanding,  these 
texts  bear  very  lightly  and  remotely  on  the  question  before 
us.  They  by  no  means  carry  with  them  that  blaze  of  evi- 
dence which  should  compel  a  man  to  unfold  the  most  humi- 
liating thoughts,  desires,  and  actions  of  his  life ;  to  corn- 


Latins  termed  repentance  resipiscentia,  a  growing  wise  again,  from  re  and 
sapere  ;  or,  according  loTertullian,  Resipiscentia  quasi  receplio  mentis  ad  se, 
restoring  the  mind  to  itself:  Contra  Marcion,  lib.  ii.  Repentance  then  im- 
plies, that  a  measure  of  divine  wisdom  is  communicated  to  the  sinner,  and 
that  he  thereby  becomes  wise  to  salvation.  That  his  mind ^  purposes,  opinions, 
and  inclinations  are  changed:  and  that,  in  consequence,  there  is  a  total 
change  in  his  conduct.  It  need  scarcely  be  remarked,  that,  in  this  state,  a 
man  feels  deep  anguish  of  soul,  because  he  has  sinned  against  God,  unfitted 
himself  for  heaven,  and  exposed  his  soul  to  hell,  Ilence,  a  true  penitent  has 
that  sorrow,  whereby  he  forsakes  sin,  not  only  because  it  has  been  ruinous 
to  his  own  soul,  but  because  it  has  been  offensive  to  God. 


229 

municate  to  a  fellow  mortal,  often  very  ignorant,  and  inca- 
pable of  advising,  those  secrets  of  the  heart,  which  to 
know,  is  the  exclusive  privilege  of  Omniscience  ;  and  of 
which  he  is  too  jealous,  to  enact,  under  the  sanction  of  a 
precept,  the  participation  of  them  with  a  sinful  creature. 
The  control  over  its  hidden  emotions  and  propensities, 
either  in  concealing  or  divulging  them  to  others,  must  be 
among  the  essential  qualities  of  the  mind,  and  the  voice  of 
God  must  be  as  distinct  as  that  which  thundered  upon 
Sinai,  before  it  can  be  imagined  that  he  ever  meant  to  in- 
fringe them. 

But  to  proceed  to  the  Reverend  gentleman's  argument 
drawn  from  the  New  Testament. — In  the  eighteenth  verse 
of  the  sixteenth  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  he  finds,  that 
"  Christ  has  instituted  the  Apostles  and  their  lawful  suc- 
cessors, the  priests  of  his  Church,  to  be  judges  upon  earth, 
invested  with  a  power,  that  without  their  sentence,  no  sin- 
ner, fallen  after  baptism,  can  be  reconciled."  Here  is  a 
discovery  of  great  latitude  indeed,  and  although  somewhat 
awkwardly  expressed,  contains  a  most  awful  and  moment- 
ous meaning  :  nothing  less  than  "  the  impossibility  of  a 
sinner's  being  reconciled  to  God,  after  baptism,  without  the 
sentence  of  a  priest."  The  first  text  is  this,  "  Thou  art  Peter, 
and  upon  this  rock  I  will  build  my  Church — and  I  will 
give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  what- 
soever thou  shalt  bind  on  earth,  shall  be  bound  in  heaven ; 
and  whatsoever  thou  shalt  loose  on  earth,  shall  be  loosed  in 
heaven."  The  second  text  is  Matt,  xviii.  18,  where,  in 
the  same  terms,  he  makes  the  same  promise  afterwards  to 
his  Apostles — "  Verily  1  say  unto  you,  whatsoever  ye  shall 
bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven,  and  whatsoever  ye 
shall  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven."  "  The 
third,  and  principal  passage,''  says  the  Reverend  gentleman, 
"upon  which  the  belief  of  the  Catholic  Church  respecting 
the  divine  institution  and  absolute  necessity  of  confession 

is  grounded,  is  found  in  the  twentieth  chapter  of  St.  John, 

u 


230 

where  Christ,  after  his  resurrection,  thus  addresses  his  dis- 
ciples, (ver.  twenty-first  and  twenty-second,)  '  As  the  Fa- 
ther hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you  ;  and  when  he  had 
said  this,  he  breathed  on  them,  and  saith  unto  them,  re- 
ceive ye  the  Holy  Ghost ;  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit,  they 
are  remitted  unto  them ;  and  whosesoever  sins  ye  retain, 
they  are  retained.' '' 

It  might  be  sufficient  here  to  observe,  respecting  these 
passages,  that  they  were  never  deemed  by  the  fathers  of 
the  primitive  Church,  to  be  conclusive  evidence  for  the 
divine  institution  of  auricular  confession,  as  it  has  been 
since  explained  and  decreed  by  the  council  of  Trent:  and 
that  during  the  ages  preceding  the  Lateran  council,  in 
1225,  they  have  been  generally  understood  as  communi- 
cating such  power  only  to  the  ministers  of  the  gospel,  as 
the  Protestant  Churches  are  willing  to  allow.  If  this  should 
be  fully  proved  in  the  second  part  of  this  Reply,  as  I  trust 
it  will,  the  confidence  of  the  Reverend  gentleman,  and  his 
adherents,  in  applying  these  passages  to  support  their  doc- 
trine, will  be  considerably  abated. 

The  Reverend  gentleman  builds  on  these  passages,  many 
arguments  in  favour  of  auricular  sacramental  confession, 
for  which  Protestants  conceive  they  furnish  no  foundation. 
The  words  "  thou  a7'i  Peierj'''  &c.  have  no  reference  to  the 
subject  immediately  before  us  ;  for  even  granting  them  to 
imply  a  promise  of  exemption  from  error,  they  surely  con- 
vey no  authority  to  St.  Peter,  to  receive  the  private  confes- 
sions of  the  faithful,  and  forgive  their  sins  by  sacramental 
absolution — But  it  is  the  power  of  the  keys,  conveyed  in 
these  passages,  on  which  the  gentleman  insists — He  iden- 
tifies this  power  with  a  judicial  authority,  which  cannot  be 
exercised  without  a  full  disclosure  of  ail  the  sins  of  the 
penitent,  to  a  judge  appointed  by  God  to  forgive  or  retain 
them.  He  tells  us,  that  to  adjust  any  differences  which  a 
subject  may  have  with  his  sovereign,  it  is  necessary  to  pre- 
sent himself  before  him  whom  the  sovereign  should  have  de- 
legated  judge  in  his  place.     Now,  is  there  any  parity  be- 


231 

tween  this  case,  and  that  of  the  sinner  with  God  ?  Suppose 
this  sovereign  to  be  onaniscient,  and,  of  course,  intimately 
acquainted  with  every  action,  thought,  and  disposition  of 
his  subject,  which  might  render  him  an  object  of  pardon  or 
punishment;  suppose,  moreover,  this  most  merciful  sove- 
reign had  issued  a  solemn  proclamation,  inviting  all  who 
"labour  and  are  heavy  laden,  to  come  unto  him,  that  he 
may  give  them  rest,"  would  a  commission  to  an  officer,  to 
grant  or  refuse  admittance  into  his  kingdom,  induce  the  sub- 
ject to  apply  to  him  on  a  subject  no  wise  connected  with 
this  commission,  especially  if,  by  a  solemn  ordinance,  he 
had  already  been  received  as  a  regular  subject  into  this 
kingdom?  Again,  let  us  suppose  that  a  sovereign  should 
appoint  judges  throughout  his  dominions,  to  absolve  all  his 
subjects  from  the  guilt  and  penalties  of  rebellion,  who 
should  manifest  satisfactory  evidences  of  their  repentance 
and  future  allegiance,  would  it  be  necessary  to  specify 
every  act  of  rebellion  of  which  these  subjects  had  been 
guilty?  Would  not  a  general  confession  of  their  guilt  and 
sincere  resolutions  to  offend  no  more  be  sufficient  grounds 
for  the  judges  to  act  upon,  to  declare  them  reinstated  in  the 
favour  of  their  sovereign  and  the  privileges  of  his  kingdom  ? 
The  power  of  binding  B.nd' loosening  is  committed  to  these 
judges,  and  it  can  only  be  exercised  by  declaring  those  to 
be  still  guilty,  who  remain  obstinate  in  their  offi^nces,  and 
those  to  be  absolved  who  are  sincerely  penitent.  Thus,  we 
see  that  one  of  the  Reverend  gentleman's  main  propositions, 
"  that  if  confession  be  not  of  divine  institution,  and  of  ab- 
solute necessity  for  the  reconciliation  of  the  sinner,  that  is, 
if  there  be  any  other  ordinary  means  to  obtain  the  remis- 
sion of  sins  committed  after  baptism,  different  from  con- 
fession, the  use  and  exercise  of  the  power  of  forgiving  and 
retaining  sins,  would  be  rendered  thereby  wholly  useless 
and  nugatory."  We  perceive,  I  say,  that  this  assertion  is 
totally  unfounded,  A  circumstantial  enumeration  of  every 
ginful  thought,  word,  and  deed,  to  be  made  to  a  priest  by  a 


232 

private  confession,  is  not  required  by  any  of  these  passages 
of  Scripture,  for  the  due  exercise  of  the  Christian  ministry 
in  the  forgiveness  of  sins. 

We  find  throughout  the  New  Testament,  that  "  Christ 
has  given  power  and  commandment  to  his  ministers  to  de- 
clare and  pronounce  to  his  people,  being  penitent,  the  ab- 
solution and  remission  of  their  sins  ;  and  that  he  pardoneth 
and  absolveth  all  those  who  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly 
believe  his  holy  Gospel."  {Common  Prayer.)  This  we  find, 
and  we  find  nothing  more  ;  for  as  to  the  ^o\\ ex  oi  retaining 
sins,  the  Rev.  gentleman  will  not,  surely,  conceive  it  to  be 
applicable  to  those,  for  which,  the  sinner  exhibits  every 
reasonable  mark  of  godly  sorrow  and  repentance.  Sins 
thus  repented  of,  God  could  never  have  given  any  man 
power  to  retain.  Such  power  would  efface  every  idea  of 
divine  placability,  contradict  the  most  positive  declarations 
of  Scripture,  and  overthrow  the  whole  economy  of  the  Gos- 
pel. Besides,  the  power  of  retaining  sins  can  never,  upon 
the  Rev.  gentleman's  own  principles,  constitute  any  part  of 
this  sacrament  of  penance,  because  absolution  is  the  form 
of  that  sacrament,  so  that  where  there  is  no  absolution  there 
can  be  no  sacrament.  The  power,  therefore,  of  the  keys, 
or  the  authority  to  bind  and  to  loose,  to  forgive  and  retain 
sins,  communicated  by  Christ  to  his  Apostles  and  their  suc- 
cessors, must  be  very  different  from  that  now  exercised  by 
the  priests  of  the  Romish  Church  :  and,  truly,  do  we  read 
in  the  New  Testament,  that  any  such  power  as  this  was  ex- 
ercised by  the  apostles?  The  Rev.  gentleman,  indeed, 
points  out  several  passages,  which  mention,  in  general 
terms,  the  confession  of  sins,  but  how  he  can  seriously  be- 
lieve, that  they  establish  auricular  sacramental  confession, 
must  be  matter  of  astonishment  to  those  who  are  accus- 
tomed to  think  for  themselves.  Do  the  recorded  instances 
of  our  Saviour  pronouncing  forgiveness  of  sins  mention  any 
confession  but  such  as  was  general?  Did  the  penitent  wo> 
man,  when  kneeling  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  watering  them 


233 

with  her  tears,  and  wiping  them  with  her  hair,  go  into  a 
minute  and  circumstantial  enumeration  of  her  sins;  or 
rather,  were  not  the  unequivocal  evidences  of  her  repent- 
ance deemed  sufficient  to  procure  her  absolution?  Was  not 
the  simple  confession  of  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  a  sinner," 
effectual  in  obtaining  forgiveness  for  the  contrite  Publican  1 
Where  do  we  read  that  a  private  sacramental  confession  was 
ever  made  to  Christ  or  his  Apostles?  "If  we  confess  our 
sins,"  says  St.  John,  "  God  is  faithful  and  just  to  forgive  us 
our  sins,  and  to  cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness." 
Confess  our  sins — to  whom?  not  surely  to  a  priest,  but  to 
God,  who  alone  can  "cleanse  us  from  all  unrighteousness." 
Can  the  Rev.  gentleman  imagine  that  any  unfettered  mind 
will  admit  the  following  conclusions,  drawn  from  the  pas- 
sages of  Scripture  which  he  alleges?  "Christ  left  with  his 
Apostles,  and  their  successors,  the  power  of  forgiving  and 
retaining  sins;"  therefore,  no  sins  can  be  either  forgiven 
or  retained,  but  such  as  are  revealed  to  a  priest  in  sacra- 
mental confession.  How  does  it  follow  that  a  power  of  for- 
giving, in  God's  name,  the  sins  revealed  to  his  ministers, 
implies  an  obligation  or  necessity  of  making  a  minute  and 
circumstantial  confession  of  every  deadly  sin?  How  does 
it  follow,  that  God  will  not  forgive  sins  which  are  not  re- 
vealed to  a  priest?  Does  this  power  in  the  Christian  Church 
invalidate  the  means  of  obtaining  forgiveness  adopted  in 
the  Jeivish :  or  arc  the  motives  of  a  pardoning  God  fluctu- 
ating and  uncertain?  Would  not  a  penitential  spirit  plead 
as  effectually  for  a  Christian  now,  as  it  did  for  king  David 
in  the  olden  time,  when  he  said,  (Ps.  xxxii.)  "  I  will  ac- 
knowledge my  sin  unto  thee,  and  my  unrighteousness  have 
I  not  hid.  I  said,  I  will  confess  my  sins  unto  the  Lord, 
and  so  thou  forgavest  the  wickedness  of  my  sin  :"  or  shall 
Christians  be  compelled  to  believe,  that  a  few  ambiguous 
expressions  are  to  be  diverted  from  their  moie  obvious  and 
consistent  meaning,  to  bind  on  their  consciences  a  most  in- 
tolerable burthen,  inconsistent  with  the  perfect  law  of  11- 

u2 


234 

berty,  by  which  Christ  has  set  us  free,  and  tending  fre- 
quently, it  is  to  be  feared,  to  inspire  a  confidence  of  for- 
giveness, resting  rather  on  a  compliance  with  so  humiliat- 
ing an  ordinance,  than  on  the  full  and  perfect  atonement 
and  satisfaction  of  Christ  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  1 

A  more  frequent,  explicit,  and  impressive  reference  to 
this  fundamental  article  of  Christianity  would  not  fail  to 
detract  from  the  imaginary  importance  of  sacramental  con- 
fession, by  convincing  every  scriptural  believer,  that  no 
satisfaction  for  sin  can  be  made  or  required,  but  what  has 
been  already  made  by  the  great  Redeemer ;  and  that  even 
repentance  itself,  without  it,  so  far  from  being  sufficient  to 
ensure  the  sinner's  amendment,  is  rather  calculated  to  ren- 
der him  easy  under  his  guilt,  from  the  facility  of  reconcilia- 
tion. There  is,  in  fact,  no  other  doctrine,  or  ordinance,  or 
discipline,  which,  exclusively  of  this  tenet,  can  alarm  or 
rouse  the  sinner  from  the  apathy  of  habitual  transgression. 
I  know  that  the  Rev.  gentleman  believes  this  doctrine  in 
its  full  extent ;  and  I  know  that  Protestants  feel  grateful  to 
his  Church,  that  amidst  the  prevalence  of  ignorance,  su- 
perstition, and  folly,  she  still  preserved  inviolate  this  and 
other  vital  principles  of  our  holy  faith  ;  for  it  was  against 
these  that  the  gates  of  hell,  or  the  powers  of  death  and 
darkness,  were  never  to  prevail.  But  I  put  it  to  tiie  con- 
science of  the  Rev.  gentleman,  whether  his  high  encomiums 
on  the  divine  right,  the  indispensable  necessity,  and  the 
mighty  benefits  of  auricular  confession,  do  not  tend  to  keep 
this  fundamental  tenet  out  of  sight,  or  at  least  to  place  it 
in  the  back  ground  of  the  Christian  system. 

The  following  luminous  exposition  of  these  passages,  by 
the  learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  if  duly  considered,  would 
probably  set  at  rest  for  ever,  all  controversy  arising  from 
them. 

"  Thou  art  Peter.  This  was  the  same  as  if  he  had  said, 
I  ack?ioioledge  thee  for  one  of  my  disciples — for  this  name 


235 

was  given  him  by  our  Lord  when  he  first  called  him  to  the 
apostleship.     See  John  i.  42. 

"Peter,  ^rpo?,  signifies  a  rock;  and  our  Lord,  whose 
constant  custom  it  was  to  rise  to  heavenly  things  through 
the  medium  of  earthly,  takes  occasion  from  the  name,  the 
metaphorical  meaning  of  which  was  strength  and  stability, 
to  point  the  solidity  of  the  confession,  and  the  stability  of 
that  cause  which  should  be  founded  on  the  Christ,  the 
Son  of  the  Living  God. 

"  Upon  this  very  rock,  in  ravm  t«  Trirpx — this  true  confes- 
sion of  thine — that  I  am  the  Messiah,  that  am  come  to 
reveal  and  communicate  the  living  God,  that  the  dead 
lost  world  may  be  saved — upon  this  very  rock  myself,  thus 
confessed,  (alluding  probably  to  Psal.  cxviii.  22.  The 
Stone  which  the  builders  rejected  is  become  the  Head-stone 
of  the  Corner:  and  to  Isa.  xxviii.  16.  Behold  I  lay  a 
Stone  in  Zion  for  a  Foundation,) — will  I  build  my 
Church  fAov  Tiiv  iKK\>icr:oiv,  my  assembly  or  congregation,  i.  e. 
of  persons  who  are  made  partakers  of  this  precious  faith. 
That  Peter  is  not  designed  in  our  Lord's  words,  must  be 
evident  to  all  who  are  not  blinded  by  prejudice.  Peter  was 
only  one  of  the  builders  in  this  sacred  edifice,  (Eph.  ii.  20.) 
who,  himself  tells  us,  (with  the  rest  of  the  believers,)  was 
built  on  this  living  foundation  stone  ;  (1  Pet.  ii.  4.  5.) 
therefore,  Jesus  Christ  did  not  say,  o?i  thee,  Peter,  will  I 
build  my  Church,  but  changes  immediately  the  expression, 
and  says,  upon  that  very  rock^  ^tti  ruuTu  m  TnrpA  to  show  that 
he  neither  addressed  Peter  nor  any  other  of  the  Apostles. 
So,  the  supremacy  of  Peter,  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
Church  of  Rome,  must  be  sought  in  some  other  Scripture, 
for  they  certainly  are  not  to  be  found  in  this. 

"  The  gates  of  Hell,  Trvxa-i  aJov,  i.  e.  the  machinations  and 
powers  of  the  invisible  world.  In  ancient  times,  the  gates 
of  fortified  cities  were  used  to  hold  councils  in  :  and  were 
usually  places  of  great  strength.  Our  Lord's  expression 
means,  that  neither  the  plots,  stratagems,  nor  strength  of 


236 

Satan  and  his  angels,  should  ever  so  far  prevail  as  to  de- 
stroy the  sacred  truths  in  the  above  confession.  Sometimes 
the  gates  are  taken  for  the  troops  which  issue  out  from 
them — we  may  firmly  believe,  that  though  Hell  should 
open  her  gates,  and  vomit  out  her  devil  and  all  his  angels 
to  fight  against  Christ  and  his  saints,  ruin  and  discomfiture 
must  be  the  consequence  on  their  part ;  as  the  arm  of  the 
Omnipotent  7nust  prevail. 

"  The  keys  of  the  kingdom.  By  the  kingdom  of  heaven, 
we  may  consider  the  true  Church,  that  house  of  God,  to  be 
meant,  and  by  the  keys,  the  power  of  admitting  into  that 
house,  or  of  preventing  any  improper  person  from  coming 
in.  In  other  words,  the  doctrine  of  salvation,  and  the  full 
declaration  of  the  way  in  which  God  will  save  sinners  :  and 
who  they  are  that  shall  be  finally  excluded  from  heaven  ; 
and  on  what  account.  When  the  Jews  made  a  man  a  doctor 
of  the  law,  they  put  into  his  hand  the  key  of  the  closet  in 
the  temple,  where  the  sacred  books  were  kept,  and  also 
tablets  to  write  upon  ;  signifying  by  this  that  they  gave 
him  authority  to  teach  and  to  explain  the  Scriptures  to  the 
people.  Martin,  This  prophetic  declaration  of  our  Lord 
was  literally  fulfilled  to  Peter,  as  he  was  made  the^rs^  in- 
strument of  opening,  i.  e.  preaching  the  doctrines  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  to  the  Jews,  (Acts  ii.  41,)  and  to  the 
Gentiles,  (Acts  x.  44 — 47.  xi.  1.  xv.  7.) 

"  Whatsoever  thou  shalt  hind  on  earth,''"'  This  mode  of 
expression  was  frequent  among  the  Jews :  they  considered 
that  every  thing  that  was  done  upon  earth  according  to  the 
order  of  God,  was  at  the  same  time  done  in  heaven  :  hence 
they  were  accustomed  to  say,  that  when  the  priest,  on  the 
day  of  atonement,  offered  the  two  goats  upon  earth,  the 
same  were  offered  in  heaven.  As  one  goat  therefore  is 
permitted  to  escape  on  earth,  one  is  permitted  to  escape  in 
heaven  ;  and  when  the  priest  casts  the  lots  on  earth,  the 
priest  also  casts  the  lots  in  heaven.  See  Sohar,  Levit.  fol. 
26,  and  see  Lightfoot  and  Schoetgen.     These  words  will 


237 

receive  considerable  light  from  Levit.  xiii.  3  and  23.  The 
priest  shall  look  upon  him  (the  leper)  and  pronounce  him 
unclean,  Heb.lHJ^  KDD1  vetimeotho,^e  sAa/ZpoZZi^^e/iiw, 
i.  e.  shall  declare  him  polluted,  from  the  evidences  men- 
tioned before,  and  in  ver.  23.  The  priest  shall  pronounce 
him  clean  tllDIl  inHDI  vetiharo  hacohen,  the  priest  shall 
cleanse  him,  i.  e.  declare  he  is  clean  from  the  evidences 
mentioned  in  the  verse.  In  the  one  case  the  priest  de- 
clared the  person  infected  with  the  leprosy,  and  mifit  for 
civil  society:  and  in  the  other,  that  the  suspected  person 
was  clean,  and  might  safely  associate  with  his  fellows  in 
civil  or  religious  assemblies.  The  disciples  of  our  Lord, 
from  having  the  keys,  i.  e.  the  true  knowledge  of  the  doc- 
trine of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  should  be  able  at  all  times 
to  distinguish  between  the  clean  and  the  unclean,  and  pro- 
nounce infallible  judgment :  and  this  binding  and  loosing, 
or  pronouncingj/?^  or  unft  for  fellowship  with  the  members 
of  Christ,  being  always  according  to  the  doctrine  of  the 
Gospel  of  God,  should  be  considered  as  proceeding  imme- 
diately from  heaven,  and  consequently  as  divinely  rati- 
fied:' 

That  binding  and  loosing  were  terms  in  frequent  use 
among  the  Jews,  and  that  they  meant  bidding  and  forbid- 
ding, granting  and  refusing,  declaring  lauful  or  unlawful, 
&;c.  Dr.  Lightfoot,  after  having  given  numerous  instances, 
thus  concludes  : 

"  To  these  may  be  added,  if  need  were,  the  frequent, 
(shall  I  say  ?)  or  infinite  use  of  the  phrases  njl^D*)  11DK 
bound  and  loosed,  which  we  meet  with  thousands  of  times 
over.  But  from  these  allegations  the  reader  sees  abun- 
dantly enough  both  the  frequency  and  the  common  use  of 
this  phrase,  and  the  sense  of  it  also  ;  namely,  first,  that  it  is 
used  in  doctrine,  and  in  judgments,  concerning  things 
allowed  or  not  allowed  in  the  law.  Secondly,  that  to  bind 
is  the  same  with  to  forbid,  or  to  declare  forbidden.  To 
think  that  Christ,  when  he  used  the  common  phrase,  was 


238 

not  understood  by  his  hearers,  in  the  common  and  vulgar 
sense,  shall  I  call  it  a  matter  of  laughter,  or  of  madness  ? 

"  To  this,  therefore,  do  these  words  amount.  When  the 
time  was  come  wherein  the  Mosaic  Law,  as  to  some  part  of 
it,  was  to  be  abolished,  and  left  off,  and  as  to  another  part 
of  it,  was  to  be  continued,  and  last  for  ever,  he  granted 
Peter,  here,  and  to  the  rest  of  the  Apostles,  (chap,  xviii. 
18,)  a  power  to  abolish  or  confirm  what  they  thought  good, 
and  as  they  thought  good  ;  being  taught  this,  and  led  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  if  he  should  say,  whatsoever  ye  shall 
hind  in  the  law  of  Moses  that  \^  forbid,  it  shall  he  forbidden, 
the  divine  authority  confirming  it ;  and  whatsoever  ye  shall 
loose,  that  is,  permit,  or  shall  teach  that  it  is  permitted  and 
lawful,  shall  be  lawful  and  per7nitted.  Hence  they  boundy 
that  is,  forbad  circumcision  to  the  believers ;  eating  of 
things  offered  to  idols,  of  things  strangled,  and  of  blood  for 
a  time,  to  the  Gentiles:  and  that  which  they  bound  on 
edrtk  was  confirmed  in  heaven.  They  loosed,  that  is,  allow- 
ed purification  to  Paul,  and  io  four  other  brethren,  for  the 
shunning  of  scandal,  (Acts  xxi.  24,)  and  in  a  word,  by 
these  words  of  Christ  it  was  committed  to  them,  the  Holy 
Spirit  directing,  that  they  should  make  decrees  concerning 
religion,  as  to  the  use  or  rejection  of  Mosaic  rites  and  judg- 
ments, and  that  either  for  a  time,  or  for  ever. 

"  Let  the  word  be  applied,  by  way  of  paraphrase,  to  the 
matter  that  was  transacted  at  present  with  Peter.  *I  am 
about  to  build  a  Gentile  Church,'  saith  Christ,  ^and  to 
thee,  O  Peter,  do  I  give  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven, that  thou  vaAyesi  first  open  the  door  of  faith  to  them; 
but  if  thou  askest  by  what  rule  that  Church  is  to  be  go- 
verned, when  the  Mosaic  rule  may  seem  so  improper  for 
it,  thou  shalt  be  so  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  whatso- 
ever of  the  law  of  Moses  thou  shalt  forbid  them,  shall  be 
forbidden  :  whatsoever  thou  grantest  them,  shall  be  grant- 
ed,  and  that  under  a  sanction  made  in  heaven.'  Hence,  in 
that  instant,  when  he  should  use  his  ketjs,  that  is,  when  he 


259 

was  now  ready  to  open  the  gate  of  the  Gospel  to  the  GeU' 
tiles,  (Acts  X.)  he  was  taught  from  heaven,  that  the  con- 
sorting of  the  Jew  with  the  Gentile,  which  before  had  been 
hound  was  now  loosed  ;  and  the  eating  of  any  creature  con- 
venient for  food,  was  now  loosed,  which  before  had  been 
bound  ;  and  he,  in  like  manner,  looses  both  these. 

"  Those  words  of  our  Saviour,  (John  xx.  23,)  Whose  sins 
ye  remit,  they  are  remitted  to  them,  for  the  most  part  are 
forced  to  the  same  sense  with  these  before  us,  when  they 
carry  quite  another  sense.  Here  the  business  is  of  doc- 
trine  only,  not  of  perso7is ;  there  of  persons,  not  of  doctrine. 
Here  of  things  lawfvl  or  unlaurful  in  religion,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  the  Apostles  ;  there  of  persons  obstinate  or  not 
obstinate,  to  be  punished  by  them,  or  not  to  be  punished. 

"  As  to  doctrine  the  Apostles  were  doubly  instructed. 
1.  So  long  sitting  at  the  feet  of  their  Master,  they  had  im- 
bibed the  evangelical  doctrine.  2.  The  Holy  Spirit  di- 
recting them,  they  were  to  determine  concerning  the  legal 
doctrine  and  practice,  being  completely  instructed  and  ena- 
bled in  both,  by  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  upon  them.  As 
to  the  persons,  they  were  endowed  with  a  peculiar  gift,  so 
that  the  same  Spirit  directing  them,  if  they  would  retain, 
and  punish  the  sins  of  any,  a  power  was  delivered  into 
their  hands  of  delivering  to  Satan,  of  punishing  with  dis- 
eases, plagues,  yea,  death  itself,  which  Peter  did  to  Ana- 
nias and  Sapphira  ;  Paul  to  Elymas,  Hymeneus,  and  Phi- 
letiis,^^  &;c. 

After  all  these  evidences  and  proofs  of  the  proper  use  of 
these  terms,  to  attempt  to  press  the  words  into  the  service 
long  assigned  them  by  the  Church  of  Rome,  would,  to  use 
the  words  of  Dr.  Lightfoot,  be  "  a  matter  of  laughter  or  of 
madness.  No  Church  can  use  them  in  the  sense  thus  im- 
posed upon  them,  which  was  done  merely  to  serve  secular 
ends;  and  least  of  all  can  that  very  Church  that  thus 
abuses  them." 

Any  further  observations  on  texts  relating  to  this  sub- 


240 

ject  might  safely  be  omitted  ;  for  we  may  confidently  pre- 
sume  that  no  unprejudiced  reader  will  consider  the  other 
passages  of  the  New  Testament,  brought  forward  in  the 
second  chapter  of  the  Appendix,  as  bearing  in  the  smallest 
degree  on  sacramental  confession.  Let  him,  however, 
judge  for  himself. 

The  first  prssage  is  this:  [Acts  19.)  "And  many  that 
believed,  came  and  confessed,  and  showed  their  deeds." 
Here  mention  is  made  of  confession  of  sins,  but  is  any 
thing  said  of  sacramental  absolution  ?  These  people  openly 
"  acknowledged  and  confessed  their  manifold  sins  and 
wickedness,  they  did  not  dissemble  nor  cloak  them  before 
the  face  of  their  heavenly  Father,  but  confessed  them  with 
an  humble,  lowly,  penitent,  and  obedient  heart."  In  terms 
approaching  to  the  language  of  one  Protestant  Church,  and 
in  the  spirit  of  them  all,  tjiey  probably  vented  the  sorrows 
of  their  hearts,  "  by  acknowledging  and  bewailing  their 
manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  which  from  time  to  time  they 
most  grievously  had  committed,  by  thought,  word,  and  deed, 
against  the  Divine  Majesty,  provoking  most  justly  his  wrath 
and  indignation  against  them ;"  by  declaring  that  they 
"  did  earnestly  repent,  and  were  heartily  sorry  for  all  these 
their  misdoings;  that  the  remembrance  of  them  was  griev- 
ous unto  them  ;  the  burthen  of  them  intolerable  ;"  and  "  by 
imploring  mercy  and  forgiveness  of  all  that  was  past,  from 
their  most  merciful  Father,  for  the  sake  of  his  Son,  and 
their  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  (Communion  Service.)  Such  was 
the  nature  of  the  confession  made  by  these  people,  and, 
upon  this  unequivocal  evidence  of  their  repentance,  they 
received,  no  doubt,  from  St.  Paul,  in  virtue  of  the  powers 
of  his  sacred  ministry,  a  declaration  that  their  sins  were 
forgiven.  This  ministerial  act,  which  is  termed  by  some 
absolution,  is  still  exercised  and  highly  appreciated  in  the 
Protestant  Churches.  Every  regular  minister  of  the  Gos- 
pel conceives  himself  authorized  to  preach  forgiveness  of 
sins   to   repenting   sinners;   to   assure    them,   when  they 


241 

■exhibit  satisfactory  proofs  that  their  repentance  is  real  and 
sincere,  that  their  sins  are  remitted,  and  they  restored  to 
the  grace  and  favour  of  God.  "  They  perceive,  indeed^ 
in  the  words  of  their  sacred  commission,  a  manifest  dis- 
tinction between  the  sinner  and  the  sin."  It  is  not  said 
'*  whatsoever  sins,  but  whosesoever  sins  ye  remit."  There 
may  be  satisfactory  evidence  of  repentance  without  a  mi- 
nute and  circumstantial  disclosure  of  all  the  offences  to 
which  it  has  a  relation.  i^See  Bishop  White''s  Second  Lec- 
ture.) But  whenever  such  evidence  appears,  as  in  the  case 
before  us.  God's  ministers  are  authorized  and  bound  to  pro- 
nounce to  his  people  the  absolution  of  their  sins.  And 
whether  the  words  of  this  absolution  be,  1  absolve  thee,  as 
they  appear  in  the  office  of  Visitation  of  the  Sick,  used  by 
the  Church  of  England,  or,  1  declare  and  pronounce  you  to 
be  absolved,  as  used  exclusively  by  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  America,  in  neither  case  do  they  furnish  any 
countenance  to  the  sense  of  sacramental  absolution,  as  un- 
derstood and  taught  by  the  Romish  Church.  The  forms 
of  absolution,  however  expressed,  are  by  all  Protestants 
held  to  be  mexely  deprecatory  and  declaratory  ;  and  indeed 
in  this  light  were  they  considered  by  the  whole  Christian 
Church  down  to  the  thirteenth  century,  as  will  appear 
hereafter. 

Upon  the  whole,  the  passage  before  us  is  perfectly  ana* 
logous  to  that  in  the  second  chapter  of  St.  Matthew,  where, 
it  is  said,  "  all  Jerusalem  and  all  Judea,  and  all  the  region 
round  about  Jordan,  went  out  to  John,  and  were  baptized 
by  him  in  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins."  Now,  will  the 
Rev.  gentleman  tell  us  that  this  confession  affords  any  pre* 
text  for  the  sacrament  of  penance  ? 

With  respect  to  the  text  from  2  Cor.  v.  it  is  really  sur- 
prising, that  the  Rev.  gentleman  should  cite  it  in  support 
of  his  doctrine.  "God,"  says  the  Apostle,  "has  given  to 
us  the  ministry  of  reconciliation ;"  that  is,  he  has  commis- 
sioned and  charged  us,  the  pastors  of  his  Church,  to  publish 


242 

and  announce  to  mankind  his  reconciliation  to  our  sinful 
race  in  Christ,  or  through  the  sufferings  and  death  of  Christ, 
as  the  grand  principle  and  motive  of  this  reconciliation. 
"We  then  pray  you,  as  ambassadors  for  Christ;"  we  pray 
you  in  God's  name  ;  "  we  pray  you  in  Christ's  stead,  be  ye 
reconciled  to  God  ;"  that  is,  in  other  words,  we  implore,  we 
beseech  you,  in  the  name  of  God,  and  as  the  ministers  of 
Christ,  lay  hold  by  faith  on  the  great  atonement  made  by 
Christ  for  the  world,  as  the  ground  and  assurance  of  your 
reconciliation  with  your  Maker.     Now,  what  has  the  minis- 
try of  such  reconciliation  as  this  to  do  with  auricular  sa- 
cramental confession?  It  relates  entirely  to  the  ministry  of 
the  word,  to  the. preaching  of  the  glad  tidings  of  salvation 
to  a  lost  world,  through  the  atoning  blood  of  the  Redeemer. 
The  third  and  last  passage  quoted  by  the   Rev.  gentle- 
man is  from  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  Epistle  of  St.  James, 
where  the  Apostle  exhorts  the  faithful  to  *'  confess  their 
sins  one  to  another."     This  text  can  never  subserve  the 
cause  of  sacramental  confession,  till  it  be  shown,  that  to 
*'  confess  to  one  another,"  means  "  to  confess  exclusively 
to  a  priest."     Besides,  as  understood  by  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man, it  proves  too  much,  and  therefore  proves  nothing:  for 
if  it  enjoin  on  all  Christians  the  obligation  of  mutual  con- 
fession, and   this  confession    be    sacramental,  then  must 
priests  confess  to  laymen,  as  well  as  laymen  to  priests. 
But  the  fact  is,  no  passage  could  have  been  selected  more 
unfortunately  to  uphold  the  Romish  doctrine  on  this  head, 
or  more  pointedly  to  enforce  the  Protestant  opinions :  for 
why  are  we  exhorted  in  this  place  "  to  confess  our  sins  to 
one  another?"  Not  to  obtain  absolution  of  a  priest;  but, 
as  the  context  clearly  proves,  that  from  a  mutual  feeling  of 
our  infirmities  and  sins,  we  may  be  induced  to  pray  for 
each  other,  as  "  the   prayer  of  a  righteous  man  availeth 
much" — and  by  "  the  prayer  of  faith  our  sins  may  be  for- 
given us." 

The  arguments  for  pressing  this  passage  into  the  cause 


243 

of  sacramental  confession,  are  really  too  trifling  to  merit 
further  notice ;  and  therefore,  having  considered  all  the 
scriptural  proofs  for  this  doctrine  contained  in  the  Appen- 
dix, we  leave  them  to  the  decision  of  the  candid  reader, 
trusting  confidently  that  after  an  impartial  investigation, 
like  many  Roman  Catholic  divines,  he  will  be  compelled  to 
look  elsewhere  for  the  divine  institution  of  this  sacrament, 
and  to  adopt  the  opinion  of  the  celebrated  Peter  Lombard, 
styled  by  way  of  eminence  the  master  of  the  sentences,  and 
considered  as  one  of  the  theological  luminaries  of  the 
twelfth  century.  "Behold,"  says  he,  (lib.  4.  dist.  18.  fol. 
108,  109.)  "what  a  variety  of  opinions  has  been  delivered 
by  the  doctors  upon  these  things ;  and  amidst  so  great  a 
variety,  what  are  we  to  abide  by  ?  This  truly  we  can  say 
and  think,  that  God  o/iZy  remits  sins,  and  retains  them: 
and  yet  he  has  granted  power  to  the  Church  to  hind  and  to 
loosen.  But  he  binds  and  loosens  in  a  different  manner 
from  the  Church.  For  he  remits  sin  by  himself  only,  be- 
cause he  both  cleanses  the  soul  from  the  inward  stain,  and 
frees  her  from  the  debt  of  eternal  death.  But  this  he  never 
granted  to  priests,  to  whom,  nevertheless,  he  gave  the 
power  of  binding  and  loosening  :  that  is,  of  declaring  men 
either  bound  or  loosened.  Hence,  our  Lord  first  restored 
the  leper  to  health  by  himself,  then  sent  him  to  the  priests, 
that  by  their  judgment  he  might  be  pronounced  to  be 
cleansed.''  Thus  explicitly  does  this  eminent  divine,  so 
late  as  the  twelfth  century,  deliver  the  doctrine  of  the  Re- 
formation, and  contradict  that  of  the  council  of  Trent.  We 
proceed  now  to  show,  that  Peter  Lombard  was  not  singular 
in  his  opinion  ;  that  it  prevailed  universally  in  the  primitive 
Church,  and  that  the  present  Romish  doctrine  o{  sacramen- 
tal confession  was  not  enacted  into  an  article  of  faith,  and 
indispensable  discipline,  previously  to  the  thirteenth  cen- 
tury. 


244 


PART   SECOND. 

The  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers  does  not  'prove  sacra- 
mental confession. 

In  casting  his  eye  over  the  Appendix  to  the  Catholic- 
Question,  from  page  forty-one,  the  reader  will  perceive  a 
formidable  host  of  ancient  Christian  fathers,  marshalled 
.iccording  to  the  respective  centuries  of  the  Church,  and  all 
bearing  testimony  to  sacramental  confession.  These  pas- 
sages are  earnestly  recommended  to  the  attentive  perusal 
of  the  reader,  with  this  observation,  that  as  many  more  of 
a  similar  cast  might  readily  be  added  to  their  number,  as 
would  fill  the  pages  of  a  massive  folio.  The  doctrine  of 
evangelical  repentance  and  forgiveness  of  sins  was  always 
deemed  a  primitive  and  fundamental  article  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  AVhat  wonder,  then,  that  all  her  learned  and 
orthodox  writers  should  be  found  so  zealously  insisting 
upon  its  necessity  and  truth?  But  let  these  passages  be 
exarnined  by  the  rules  of  sound  criticism  and  unprejudiced 
judgment,  and  I  will  venture  to  affirm,  that  they  mean  no- 
thing more  than  warm  and  high-strained  exhortations  to 
repentance,  either  public  or  private,  and  can  never,  w^ith- 
out  manifest  violence,  be  distorted  to  inculcate  the  neces- 
sity of  sacramental  confession  as  a  means,  {necessitate 
medii,)  or  as  a  divine  precept,  (necessitate  prcBcepti,)  for  ob- 
taining forgiveness  of  sin.  It  must  indeed  be  readily  ac- 
knowledged, that  on  this,  as  well  as  on  many  other  opinions 
and  points  of  discipline  existing  in  their  day,  the  fathers 
frequently  express  themselves  in  a  language  little  consist- 
ent with  that  coolness  and  accuracy  which  should  always 
accompany  polemical  disquisitions.  Being  ignorant  of  any 
divine  precept  XQ,s\)GQ,i\ng  minute  sacramental  confession  ^x\d 
sacerdotal  absolution,  as  they  are  now  understood  in  the 
Church  of  Rome,  they  indulged  in  a  laxity  and  ambiguity 


245 

of  expression,  which  any  controversy  existing  at  the  time 
would  have  induced  them  to  avoid.  But  no  such  contro- 
versy did  exist  in  their  day.  Confession  to  a  priest,  as  a 
divine  and  indispensahle  institution^  was  for  many  ages  at 
most  nothing  more  than  an  embryo  doctrine,  and  never 
arrived  at  its  full  birth  till  the  council  of  Trent,  in  the  six- 
teenth century,  ushered  it  into  the  world  under  all  its  guar- 
dian sanctions  and  anathemas. 

The  parade  of  passages  brought  forward  by  the  Rev» 
gentleman  from  the  writings  of  the  primitive  fathers,  and 
of  those  who  came  after  them,  can  make  nothing  to  his 
purpose,  unless  these  passages  exhibit  the  same  features 
which  are  attributed  to  confession  by  the  council  of  Trent. 
Now,  will  any  person  say  that  such  is  the  fact?  When  St. 
Ireneus  tells  us,  that  a  sinful  woman,  "penetrated  with 
grief,  spent  her  whole  time  in  confessing  and  bewailing 
her  sins,  and  lamenting  the  crime  she  had  been  led,  by  a 
magician,  to  commit;"  can  he  be  understood  to  mean  any 
thing  more  than  is  daily  done  in  Protestant  religious  assem- 
blies? Or  shall  we  be  seriously  told  that  her  wliole  time 
was  spent  in  confessing  the  same  sins  to  a  priest,  and 
obtaining  from  him  reiterated  absolution  ?  Is  there  in 
the  passage  quoted  from  Tertullian,  the  slightest  allu- 
sion to  auricular  confession,  or  sacramental  absolution? 
As  a  point  of  discipline,  this  writer  must  have  entertained 
very  rigid  notions  concerning  the  disclosure  of  sins,  and 
we  know  that  his  inflexible  obstinacy  and  severity  on  other 
subjects,  often  led  him  into  heretical  opinions.  The  quo- 
tation from  Origen  means,  only,  that  "  if  we  reveal  our 
sins  not  only  to  God,  but  to  those  who  are  able  to  heal 
our  wounds;"  that  is,  "to  wise  and  devout  ministers,  who- 
can  apply  to  our  wounded  consciences  the  healing  balsam 
of  supplication  and  advice ;"  then  will  our  sins  be  blotted 
out  by  Him  who  has  said,  "  behold  I  blot  out  iniquities  as 
a  cloud  ;"  and  this  is  evidently  the  meaning  of  the  passage  : 
{see  Orig.  in  psal.  37,  horn.  2.)  With  respect  to  the  pas- 
X  2 


2m 

sages   cited   from  St.  Cyprian,  and  other  fathers   of  the- 
two  following  ages,  their  meaning  may  be  easily  ascer- 
tained from  a  short  view  of  Church  discipline  prevailing 
at  those  periods.     This  discipline  was  extended  gradually 
to  private  as  well  as  to  public  crimes.    At  first,  public  con- 
fession was  enjoined  only  for  public  offences,  but  when 
afterwards  the  benefits  resulting  from  this  practice  became 
apparent,  many  zealous  penitents,  in  the  first  fervour  of 
their  conversion,  willing  to  obtain,  for  sins  committed  in 
private,    the    same    consolatory    declarations   which    the 
Church  pronounced  on  public  penitents,  voluntarily  sub- 
mitted themselves  to  her  outward  discipline,  and  by  a  con- 
fession of  private  sins,  underwent  the  penances  appointed 
for  such  as  were  public.     This  appears  to  be  the  case  from 
Origen  and  St.  Cyprian,  cited  in  the  Appendix,  from  St. 
Ambrose, (/i&.  I.  de  psenit.  c.  16,)  and  other  writers  of  those 
times.     That  this  public  confession  of  secret  faults,  how- 
ever, might  be  attended  with  the  greatest  advantages,  some 
prudent  minister  was  first  made  acquainted  with  them,  by 
whose  direction  the  penitent  might  understand  what  sins 
were  proper  for  the  public  notice  of  the  Church,  and  in 
what  manner  the  penance  should  be  performed.     For  this 
reason  Origen  advises,  that  great  care,  should  be  used  in 
choosing  a  skilful  physician,  to  whom  any  disclosures  of 
this  kind  should  be  made.     "  If  he  understand,"  (Orig. 
ibidem.)  "  and  foresee,  that  thy  disease  is  such  as  ought  to 
be  declared  in  the  assembly  of  the  whole  Church,  and  cured 
there,  whereby,  perhaps,  others  may  be  edified,  and  thou 
thyself  more  easily  healed  ;  with  much  deliberation,  and 
by  the  very  skilful  counsel  of  thy  physician,  must  this  be 
done." 

In  process  of  time,  that  is  to  say,  soon  after  the  persecu- 
tion of  the  emperor  Decius,  the  penitent  was  no  longer  at 
liberty  to  choose  his  spiritual  director,  but  by  the  general 
consent  of  the  bishops  it  was  ordained,  that,  in  every 
Church,  one  particular  discreet  minister,  should  he  ap- 


247 

pointed  to  receive  the  confessions  of  such  as  relapsed  into^ 
sin  after  baptism.  This  addition  to  the  penitential  canon, 
is  expressly  noticed  by  Socrates,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, (lib.  5.  c.  19,)  and  was  observed  in  the  Church  for  a 
considerable  length  of  time.  It  was,  however,  finally  abo- 
lished, when  Nectariuswas  bishop  of  Constantinople,  about 
one  hundred  and  forty  years  after  the  persecution  of  De- 
cius.  A  woman  confessed  publicly  a  sin,  in  which  a  dea- 
con of  the  Church  was  implicated,  and  a  load  of  scandal 
was  thus  cast  upon  the  clergy,  that  furnished  an  induce- 
ment to  discontinue  the  practice,  and  liberty  was  now  allow- 
ed to  every  one,  upon  the  private  examination  of  his  own 
conscience,  to  approach  the  Lord's  table.  [Socrat,  ibid,  and 
Sozomen,  lib.  7.  histor.  cap.  16.)  And  thus  was  a  rule  of 
conduct  on  this  subject  adopted,  conformable  to  that  of  the 
Apostle — (1  Cor.  xi.  28.)  "Let  a  man  examine  himself, 
and  so  let  him  eat  of  that  bread,  and  drink  of  that  cup ;" 
and  agreeable  to  the  primitive  opinion  expressed  by  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus,  when  he  asserts,  "  that  a  man's  own 
conscience  is  his  best  director  in  this  case  ;"  (lib.  1.  Strom.) 
This  abolition  of  confession  is  an  important  event  in  the 
liistory  of  the  Church,  and  it  evidently  shows  that  no  idea 
of  the  divine  rights  and  indispensable  necessity  of  the  sacra- 
ment of  penance,  then  prevailed  among  Christians.  The 
fact  stands  emblazoned  witli  irresistible  evidence.  By  the 
advice  of  a  priest  named  Eudemon,  Nectarius  was  prevailed 
upon  to  abolish  this  practice ;  and  "  this,"  says  Socrates, 
"I  am  bolder  to  relate,  because  I  received  it  from  Eude- 
mon's  own  mouth."  The  historian  Sozomen  agrees  with 
Socrates,  and  adds,  moreover,  "  that  in  his  time  (that  is,  in 
the  reign  of  Theodosius  the  younger)  the  practice  was  still 
discontinued,  and  that  the  bishops  had,  in  a  manner,  every 
where,  followed  the  example  of  Nectarius.'' 

I  am  well  aware,  that  in  order  to  invalidate  such  clear 
and  unanswerable  evidence  against  the  undefeasible  neces- 
sity and  divine  institution  of  confession,  the  cardinals  Bel- 


248 

larmine  and  Baronius,  are  compelled  to  question  the  vera- 
city of  these  historians,  or  to  contend,  that  they  spake  only 
of  the  abolition  of  public  confession.  The  force  of  their 
arguments,  however,  will  be  readily  acknowledged  to 
weigh  little  v/ith  a  Protestant,  when  it  is  known  that  they 
were  disregarded  by  one  of  their  own  most  eminent  divines. 
The  learned  Suarez  reasons  thus  on  the  subject :  "  In  this 
manner  Gratian  and  Baronius  answer,  understanding  these 
words  of  public  confession.  But  some  expressions  of  St. 
Chrysostom  are  greatly  repugnant  to  this  interpretation  ; 
by  which  he  seems  to  exclude  the  ministry  of  the  tongue, 
and  to  say,  that  confession  ought  to  be  made  in  thought 
only,"  as  liom.  31.  in  Epis.  ad  Hehrmos.  "Confess  your 
sins  before  God  ;  pronounce  your  offences  to  your  true 
Judge  in  prayer,  not  with  your  tongue,  but  from  the  recol- 
lection of  your  conscience.  Wherefore  this  exposition  ap- 
pears to  me  probable,  that  Chrysostom  spake  of  private 
confession."  {Suarez  in  Thom.  part.  3.  torn.  4.  disp.  17.) 
As  to  the  degree  of  credit  due  to  the  narrative  of  Socrates 
and  Sozomen,  the  same  learned  divine  delivers  his  opinion 
of  it,  in  the  following  words  :  {Suarez,  ibidem.)  "  Some 
answer  by  saying  that  no  credit  is  to  be  given  to  this  rela- 
tion, because  Sozomen  wrote  many  falsities,  and  because 
Socrates,  being  a  Novatian  heretic,  does  not  challenge  our 
belief.  Caesar  Baronius  answers  nearly  in  this  manner ; 
but  a  falsehood  concerning  so  important,  so  public,  and  so 
manifest  a  matter,  could  not  easily  be  forged.  Some,  there- 
fore, acknowledge,  that  he  (Nectarius)  annulled  the  prac- 
tice of  penance."  Thomas  Waldensis,  a  divine  much 
commended  by  Dr.  Stapleton,  was  entirely  of  Suarez's 
opinion,  and  boldly  asserts,  {torn.  2.  cap.  141.)  "  that  Nec- 
tarius actually  annulled  confession." 

In  conformity  with  this  alteration  in  Church  discipline, 
St.  John  Chrysostom,  who  was  the  immediate  successor  of 
Nectarius  in  the  see  of  Constantinople,  expounding  the 
words  of  the  Apostle,   (1  Cor.  11,)  "Let  every  man  ex- 


249 

amine  himself,"  &c.  writes  as  follows:  (Jiom.  28.)  "He 
doesnot  bid  one  man  toexamine  another,  but  every  one  him- 
self, making  the  judgment  private,  and  the  trial  without 
witnesses."  And  in  the  end  of  his  second  homily  on  Fast- 
ingy  which,  in  some  editions,  is  the  eighth  de  'psenitentia^ 
he  exhorts  in  these  words  :  "  within  thy  conscience,  none 
being  present  but  God,  who  sees  all  things,  enter  thou 
into  judgment,  and  into  a  search  of  thy  sins,  and  passing 
thy  whole  life  in  review,  bring  thy  sins  into  judgment  in 
thy  mind :  reform  thy  excesses,  and  so  with  a  pure  con- 
science draw  near  to  that  sacred  table,  and  partake  of  that 
holy  sacrifice."  Still,  however,  he  solemnly  charges  mi- 
nisters, not  to  admit  known  offenders  to  the  communion. 
{See  horn.  82,  in  Matt,  edit  Graec.  vel.  83,  edit.  Latin.) 
From  the  writings  of  this  father,  and  from  the  subsequent 
practice  of  the  Church,  we  learn  that  the  godly  and  apos- 
tolic discipline  of  public  penance,  was  not  entirely  abro- 
gated ;  on  the  contrary,  that  open  ofFenders  were  publicly 
censured,  and  pressed  to  make  public  confession  of  their 
sins.  Nectarius,  therefore,  merely  abolished  the  obliga* 
tion  of  disclosing  to  a  penitentiary,  such  sins  as  were  of  a 
secret  nature,  and  by  so  doing  exhibited  an  unequivocal 
proof  of  his  ignorance  of  sacramental  avi'icular  confes- 
sion, as  a  divine  and  indispensable  obligation.  With  two 
short  observations  on  this  subject,  it  shall  be  dismissed  al- 
together. One  is,  that  the  form  of  confession  used  by  the 
primitive  Christians,  was  canonical;  or,  in  other  words, 
belonged  to  that  external  discipline  of  the  Church,  which, 
for  good  reasons,  might  be  altered  ;  but,  in  no  respect,  sa- 
cramental, and  of  divine  right.  The  other  observation  is, 
that  this  measure  of  Nectarius,  was  approved  of,  not  only 
by  his  successor,  St.  Chrysostom,  but  by  most  of  the  Ca- 
tholic bishops,  whilst  the  Arian  and  other  sectarian 
Churches,  as  Socrates  and  Sozomen  inform  us  at  large,  re- 
tained the  former  usage. 

About  seventy  years  after  the  innovation  introduced  by 


250 

Nectarius,  a  custom  began  to  prevail  in  Italy,  for  penitents 
to  write  down  their  sins,  and  to  have  them  read  publicly 
in  the  Church.  St.  Leo,  bishop  of  Rome,  disapproved  of 
this  practice,  and  strictly  forbade  it.  His  own  words  on 
this  head  shall  be  laid  before  the  reader,  that  he  may  be 
enabled  to  judge  what  reference  they  have  to  sacramental 
confession  and  absolution  ;  or  how  far  the  Rev.  gentleman 
is  justified  in  pronouncing  the  "  testimony  of  this  father, 
at  once  so  pointed,  and  so  strong  in  every  point,  relating  to 
confession  as  taught  in  the  Catholic  Church,  that  none  of 
the  reformers  have  ever  offered  to  give  a  solution." 

The  Latin  text  is  before  me,  but  I  will  adopt,  in  part, 
the  translation  furnished  in  the  Appendix.  "  I  forbid," 
says  he,  "  the  recitation  in  public  of  the  declaration, 
which  sinners  shall  have  made  of  their  faults  in  detail, 
giving  them  in  writing,  because  it  is  sufficient  to  discover 
to  the  priests  by  a  private  confession,  the  sins  of  which 
they  may  stand  guilty  ;  for  although  we  should  commend 
the  great  faith  of  those,  who  fear  not  to  cover  themselves 
with  confusion  before  men,  from  a  great  fear  of  God,  never- 
theless, because  all  men's  sins  are  not  of  that  kind,  that 
they  may  not  fear  to  publish  such  of  them  as  require  re- 
pentance, let  so  inconvenient  a  custom  be  removed ;  lest 
many  be  driven  away  from  the  remedies  of  repentance, 
while  they  are  either  ashamed  or  afraid  to  disclose  their 
deeds  unto  their  enemies,  wherein  they  may  be  exposed 
to  the  danger  of  the  laws.  For  that  confession  is  suflficient 
which  is  offered  first  to  God,  and  then  to  the  priest,  who 
comes  as  an  intercessor  for  the  sins  of  the  penitent.  (Epist. 
80,  ad  Episcopos  Camp.  Samnii  et  Piceni.) 

The  Rev.  gentleman  omits  the  last  words,  although  he 
must  know,  that  on  them  turns  the  whole  controversy  be- 
tween us.  "Sacerdospro  delictispaenitentium  precator  acce- 
dit."  "  Hepra^s  that  the  sins  of  the  penitent  may  be  forgiven." 
Without  the  most  distant  hint  at  judicial  sacramental  ab- 
solution ;  although,  indeed,  the  words  may  seem  to  imply 


251 

absolution  of  a  declaratory  and  inter cessional  nature, 
which  the  Protestant  reformers  never  denied.  The  other 
passage  from  the  same  venerable  father,  is  equally  irrele- 
vant to  the  present  question.  It  speaks  of  "the  supplica- 
tions of  the  priests,  of  imposing  a  competent  penance,  and 
of  enjoining  a  wholesome  satisfaction  on  those  who  con- 
fessed their  sins,"  according  to  the  discipline  then  preva- 
lent in  the  Church ;  but,  of  absolution,  as  defined  by  the 
council  of  Trent,  not  a  syllable  occurs.  It  expresses  no 
other  sentiment,  but  that  contained  in  "  the  declaration  of 
absolution  or  remission  of  sins,"  in  the  beginning  of  the 
morning  service  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  to 
which  every  Protestant,  I  believe,  would  willingly  say, 
Amen. 

This  main  support  of  the  Romish  doctrine  of  confession, 
drawn  from  the  authority  of  St.  Leo,  and  by  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman deemed  so  conclusive,  as  to  bid  defiance  to  the 
whole  body  of  the  reformers,  being  thus  easily  removed,  a 
review  of  the  other  passages  brought  forward  in  the  Ap- 
pendix from  the  fathers,  might  readily  be  omitted  without 
any  prejudice  to  the  cause  of  truth  :  and  if  the  reader  will 
be  at  the  pains  of  perusing  them,  he  will  be  led  princi- 
pally to  observe,  as  many  divines  have  done,  and  as  Dr.  Sa- 
muel Johnson  expresses  himself  in  his  forcible  lauguage, 
(Bos.  Life,  page  322.  vol.  ii.)  "  that  it  is  probable,  that 
from  the  acknowledged  power  of  public  censure,  grew  in 
time  the  practice  of  auricular  confession.  Those  who 
dreaded  the  blast  of  public  reprehension,  were  willing  to 
submit  themselves  to  the  priest,  by  a  private  accusation  of 
themselves;  and  to  obtain  a  reconciliation  with  the  Church, 
by  a  kind  of  clandestine  absolution  and  invisible  penance, 
conditions  with  which  the  priest  would,  in  times  of  igno- 
rance and  corruption,  easily  comply,  as  they  increased  his 
influence,  by  adding  the  knowledge  of  secret  sins,  to  that 
of  notorious  offences,  and  enlarged  his  authority  by  making 
him  the  sole  arbiter  of  the  terms  of  reconcilement.  From 


252 

this  bondage,  the  reformation  set  us  free.  The  minister 
has  no  longer  power  to  press  into  the  retirements  of  con- 
science, to  torture  us  by  interrogatories,  or  put  himself  in 
possession  of  our  secrets,  and  of  our  lives.  But  though 
we  have  thus  controlled  his  usurpations,  his  just  and  origi- 
nal power  remains  unimpaired  ;  and  this  power  consists  in 
the  ministry  of  the  word,  the  due  administration  of  the 
sacraments,  and  i\\Q  forgiving  or  retaining  of  sins  in  the 
scriptural  meaning  of  the  words."  The  opinion  of  the 
learned  Beatus  Rhenanus,  the  friend  of  Erasmus,  coincides 
exactly  with  that  of  Dr.  Johnson.  His  words  are  these  : 
(Argument,  in  lib.  Tertull.  de  psenit ;)  "  For  no  other  rea- 
son have  we  here  alleged  the  testimony  of  many  writers, 
but  that  none  might  be  surprised  at  Tertullian's  silence  re- 
specting the  private  confession  of  sins,  which,  as  far  as  we 
can  conjecture,  took  its  rise  from  public  confession,  in 
order  that  the  disclosure  of  secret  sins  might  also  be  se- 
cret. We  read,  however,  no  where,  that  it  was  ever  enact- 
ed as  a  precept."  Of  the  manifold  authorities  adduced 
in  the  Appendix  from  the  ancient  fathers,  not  one  asserts 
the  "  divine  institution  and  indispensable  obligation  of  sa- 
cramental confession  ;"  and  to  obviate  any  apparent  ten- 
dency of  them  that  way,  passages  without  number  might 
easily  be  selected  to  prove  that  no  such  opinion  existed  in 
their  time.  The  reader  may  find  them  detailed  in  all  Pro- 
testant polemical  writers  on  this  subject ;  and  the  very  few 
with  which  he  shall  here  be  presented,  will  carry  witii 
them,  at  least,  sufficient  conviction  to  every  thinking  mind, 
that  the  opinions  of  the  best  divines,  on  this  head,  before 
the  council  of  Trent,  were  various,  fluctuating,  and  un- 
settled. 

The  passage  from  St.  Chrysostom,  which  has  been  aK 
ready  mentioned,  marks  sufficiently  the  opinion  of  the 
eastern  Church  in  his  day.  Do  not  the  following  words  of 
the  same  eminent  father  set  this  controversy  at  rest?  "  Let 
the  inquiry  and  punishment  of  thine  offences  be  made  in 


253 

thine  own  thoughts:  let  the  tribunal  at  which  thou  ar>» 
raignest  thyself  be  without  witness  :  let  God  alone  see  thee 
and  thy  confession."  (Horn,  de  Psea.)  Again,  {Horn.  31. 
ud  Hseh.  et.  in  Ps.  59.  Horn,  de  Paea.  et  Horn.  5.  iii.  incarn. 
Itemque  de  Lazare.)  "  I  wish  thee  not  to  accuse  thyself 
publicly,  nor  before  others :  but  I  wish  thee  to  obey  the 
Prophet,  who  says,  '  confess  thy  sins  before  God ;  tell  thy 
sins  to  him,  that  he  may  blot  them  out.'  If  thou  be 
ashamed  to  tell  unto  another,  wherein  thou  hast  offended, 
rehearse  them  every  day  in  thy  soul.  I  do  not  tell  thee  to 
confess  them  to  thy  fellow  servant,  who  may  upbraid  thee, 
but  tell  them  to  God,  who  may  cure  them.  I  pray  and  be- 
seech you,  that  you  would  more  frequently  confess  to  the 
eternal  God,  and  enumerating  all  your  trespasses,  implore 
his  forgiveness.  I  do  not  lead  you  into  a  theatre  of  your 
fellow  servants,  1  seek  not  to  disclose  your  crimes  before 
men.  Open  your  conscience  before  God,  unbosom  your^ 
selves  to  him,  lay  open  your  wounds  to  him,  who  is  the  best 
physician,  and  of  him  humbly  implore  a  medicine."  Now, 
I  put  it  to  the  candour  of  every  reader,  if  such  can  possi- 
bly be  the  sentiments  of  one  who  believes  in  the  "  divine 
right  and  obligation  of  auricular  confession?"  Indeed,  the 
testimony  of  this  father,  appeared  so  pointed  to  the  author 
of  the  Glossce  on  the  Decretals,*  that  he  positively  asserts, 
(de  P(Ba.  dis.  5.  in  P^ea.)  "  In  the  Greek  Church,  private 
confession  of  mortal  sins  was  not  necessary,  this  tradition 
having  never  reached  the  Greeks.  Some  maintain  that 
forgiveness  of  sins  may  be  obtained  without  any  confession 
made  to  the  Church  or  the  priest;"  and  he  then  cites 
Saints  Ambrose,  Austin,  and  Chrysostom  as  advocates  for 
this  opinion.  Again,  we  find  these  words  in  the  same 
place,  "But  that  the  sin  of  an  adult  person  cannot  be  re- 

*  These  Decretals  contain  a  body  of  canon  law  and  decrees  of  the  greatest 
authority,  they  having  been  approved  by  Pope  Eugenius  III. ;  and  Gratian, 
who  commented  upon  them,  is  styled,  in  the  Lyons  edition  of  1518,  "a  most 
learned  divine." 

y 


254 

mitted  without  oral  confession,  which  is  false^^^  &c. 
These  last  words,  which  is  false,  have  since  been  ordered 
to  be  expunged  in  a  famous  Index  Expurgatorius. 

It  would  be  needless,  after  what  has  been  said,  to  load 
these  pages  with  counter-passages  from  the  fathers  of  the 
four  or  five  first  centuries,  directly  invalidating  the  conse- 
quences, drawn  from  those  which  are  produced  in  the  Ap- 
pendix. These  were  never  understood  as  building  the  sys- 
tem of  auricular  confession  upon  a  divine  foundation  ;  and 
the  most  pointed  phraseology  on  this  head,  flowing  either 
from  the  glowing  imagination  of  the  Greek,  or  the  embar- 
rassed theology,  and  frequently  crude  conceptions  of  the 
Latin  fathers,  never  met  with  more  respect  in  subsequent 
ages,  than  was  due  to  men  whose  labours,  though  occa- 
sionally inconsistent  and  erroneous,*  were,  nevertheless, 
eminently  serviceable  in  defending  and  promoting  gospel 
truth  and  holiness.  The  authority  of  these  primitive  wri- 
ters made  no  other  impression  on  those  who  followed  them^ 
than  to  convince  them  that  Church  discipline  respecting 
confession  and  repentance  was  subject  to  variation,  and  a 
point  still  open  to  discussion,  without  any  imputation  either 
of  heresy  or  schism.  Could  Laurence,  bishop  of  Novaria, 
who  flourished  in  the  beginning  of  the  sixth  century,  have 
believed  confession  to  be  a  divine  and  indispensable  insti- 
tution when  he  wrote  these  words?  "After  baptism,  God 
has  appointed  the  remedy  within  thyself,  he  has  placed  re- 
mission in  thine  own  power,  that  thou  needest  not  seek  a 
priest,  when  thy  necessity  requires;  but  thou  thyself  now, 
as  a  skilful  and  prompt  master,  mayest  amend  thine  error 
within  thyself,  and  wash  away  thy  sin  by  repentance." 
{Lau.  Nov.  lib.  Pat.  Tom.  vi.)  What  was  the  opinion  of 
Cassian,  the  celebrated  Ascetic,  when  he  tells  us,  {Collat. 
20.  cap.  viii.)  "  If  any  are  withheld  through  bashfulness 
from  discovering  their  faults  to  men,  they  should   be  so 

•  See  Daille  de  usu  Patrura. 


255 

much  the  more  diligent  and  constant  in  opening  them  by 
supplication  to  God  himself,  whose  custom  is  to  afford  as- 
sistance without  the  publication  of  men's  shame,  and  not 
to  upbraid  them  when  he  pardons?"  What  was  the  opinion 
of  St.  Prosper,  who  lived  also  in  the  fifth  century,  when  he 
asserts,  "  that  it  is  a  matter  of  indifference  whether  men  of 
ecclesiastical  order,  detect  their  sins  by  confession,  or  leav- 
ing the  world  ignorant  of  them,  voluntarily  separate  them- 
selves for  a  time,  from  the  altar,  although  not  in  affection, 
yet  in  the  execution  of  their  ministry,  and  so  bewail  their 
corrupt  life?"  {de  Vita  Contemp.  lib.  ii.  c.  7.)  The  ad- 
vice of  the  holy  abbot  Paphnutius,  related  by  Cassian,  and 
inserted  among  the  canons  collected  for  the  use  of  the 
English  Church,  in  the  time  of  the  Saxons,  under  the  title 
de  psea  soli  Deo,  confitenda,  is  very  remarkable.  His 
words  are  these :  "  Who  is  it,  that  can  humbly  say,  I  made 
my  sin  known  unto  thee,  and  my  iniquity  I  have  not  hid- 
den, that  to  this  confession  he  may  deserve  to  add  what  fol- 
lows, and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  heart :  but  if 
bashfulness  do  so  draw  thee  back,  that  thou  blushest  to  re- 
veal them  before  men,  cease  not  by  continual  supplication 
to  confess  them  to  him  from  whom  they  cannot  be  hidden," 
&;c.  {Cass.  Coll.  xx.  c.  8.)  "  Tears  wash  away  the  sin  which 
the  voice  is  ashamed  to  confess,"  says  St.  Ambrose,  {Lib. 
X.  Com.  in  Luc.  c.  22.)  "  tears  confess  our  crime  without 
offering  violence  to  our  bashfulness ;"  from  which  passage 
the  Glossa  upon  Gratian  infers, "  if,  out  of  shame,  a  man  will 
not  confess,  tears  alone  blot  out  his  sin."  (Glos.  de  pas  dist. 
i.  c.  2.  lachrymcB.) 

In  the  ages  which  followed  the  irruption  of  the  northern 
hordes  into  Christendom,  when  the  lamp  of  science  was 
nearly  extinguished,  and  the  fair  features  of  religion  greatly 
obscured  by  the  prevalence  of  disgusting  ignorance,  and 
its  offspring  superstition  ;  when,  except  by  a  chosen  iew, 
reference  was  seldom  had  to  the  all-sufficiency  of  Christ's 
atonement,  and  to  an  entire  reliance  on  his  full  and  effec- 


256 

tual  satisfaction  for  the  remission  of  sins,  confession  and 
bodily  austerities  naturally  obtained  a  great  degree  of  im- 
portance from  their  supposed  efficacy  in  quieting  the  con- 
sciences of  sinners.  Accordingly,  we  are  not  surprised  to 
meet  with  recommendations  to  confession,  amounting  nearly 
to  precepts,  in  some  of  the  writers  and  councils  of  the  mid- 
dle ages.  Yet_a  germ  of  good  sense  and  Scripture  know- 
ledge, still  vegetated  in  the  Church,  which  neither  the  jar- 
gon of  scholastic  theology,  nor  the  cullability  of  the  ignor- 
ant multitude,  was  ever  able  to  wither.  The  obligation  of 
auricular  confession  and  sacerdotal  absolution,  remained 
for  many  ages  a  subject  of  altercation  and  doubt,  nor  was 
it  till  the  Protestants,  in  the  valleys  of  Piedmont,  began  ta 
settle  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel  upon  their  scriptural 
foundations,  that  any  council  conceived  it  to  be  its  duty  or 
interest  to  pronounce  definitively  upon  it. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  lead  the  reader  through  a  long 
catalogue  of  writers,  who  lived  before  the  councils  of  La- 
teran  and  Trent,  as  a  few  prominent  authorities  will  answer 
the  purpose  of  a  volume,  and  will  convince  the  reader  that 
it  is  a  real  imposition  on  the  public,  to  assert  that  throughout 
every  age  of  the  Church,  previously  to  these  councils,  uni- 
formity of  opinion  existed  on  the  obligation  of  confession* 

Bede,  who  lived  in  the  eighth  century,  would  have  us 
confess  our  daily  and  light  sins  one  unto  another,  but  open 
the  uncleanness  of  the  greater  leprosy  to  the  priest.  Al- 
cuin,  who  wrote  shortly  after,  advises  the  "  confession  of 
all  the  sins  that  can  be  remembered :"  but  it  appears  from 
this  same  Alcuin,  and  Haymo  of  Halberstadt,  who  wrote 
soon  after  him,  that  "  some  would  not  confess  their  sins  to 
the  priest,"  but  said,  "  it  was  sufficient  for  them  that  they 
did  confess  their  sins  to  God  alone."  {Ale.  Epis.  26.  Hayrn. 
in  Evang.  in  Dom.  15.  Post  Pent.)  Others  confessed  their 
sins  to  the  priests,  but  not  fully,  as  appears  from  the  coun- 
cil of  Cavaillon,  held  in  the  reign  of  Charlemagne.  Great 
stress  is  laid  on  the  determinations  of  this  council,  by  the 


257 

advocates  of  the  sacrament  of  penance ;  but  to  what,  in 
fact,  do  they  amount?  They  censure,  though  but  lightly, 
this  partial  confession,  and  then  a  free  acknowledgment 
is  made,  that  it  remained  still  a  question,  whether  men 
should  confess  to  God,  or  to  priests  also.     The  words  of 
the  council  are  these,  which  may  serve  as  a  key  to  many 
other  authorities  from  councils  and  scholastic  writers,  pro- 
duced in  the  Appendix,  with  imposing  prodigality.  "  Some 
say,  that  they  ought  to  confess  their  sins  to  God  only,  and 
some  think,  that  they  ought  to  be  confessed  to  the  priests, 
both  which  practices  exist,  not  w^ithout  great  fruit  in  the 
holy  Church ;  namely,  thus,  that  we  both  confess  our  sins 
to  God,  who  is  the  forgiver  of  sins,  saying  v.'ith  David,  '  I 
have  acknowledged  my  sin  unto  thee,  and  my  iniquity  I 
have  not  hidden,  and  thou  forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin  :* 
And,  according  to  the  Apostle,  we  confess  our  sins  to  one 
another,  and  pray  for  one  another,  that  we  may  be  healed. 
The  confession,  therefore,  which  is  made  to  God,  purges 
away  sin,  but  that  which  is  made  to  the  priest,  teaches  in 
what  manner  they  should  be  purged  away.     '  For  God,  the 
author  and  bestower  of  salvation  and  health,  sometimes 
gives  it  by  the  invisible  administration  of  his  power,  some- 
times by  the  operation  of  physicians.'  "   {Con.  Cavaillorij 
cap.   33.    Anno  813.)     In   the  Paenitential  of  Theodore, 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  who  died  in   690,  are  found 
these  remarkable  words,  "  It  is  lawful  tliat  confession  be 
made  to  God  alone,  if  it  be  requisite."     This  document. 
Archbishop  Usher  tells  us,  he  transcribed  from  an  ancient 
copy  in  Sir  Robert  Cotton's  library.     From  this  Paeniten- 
tial, Gratian  erroneously  quotes  the  canon  above  mentioned, 
but  in  doing  so,  he  asserts  that,  in  the  eighth  century,  the 
Greeks  denied  the  necessity  of  confession  except  to  God 
alone,  "  Quidam  Deo  solummodo  confiteri  debere  peccata 
dicunt,  ut  Grasci."  (de  Pcea.  dist.  1.  cap.  tilt.)   Whatever 
doctrines  or  discipline  afterwards  prevailed  in  the  Greek 

Church,  can  have  no  bearing  on  the  present  subject,  and 

y2 


25S 

must  render  the  numerous  quotations  of  the  Rev.  gentle- 
man to  press  that  Church  into  his  service,  nugatory  and 
useless.  The  opinions  of  theologians  in  the  twelfth  cen- 
tury, are  thus  clearly  stated  by  the  learned  Gratian  :  "upon 
what  authority,"  says  he,  "  or  upon  what  strength  of  argu- 
ments both  these  opinions  are  grounded,"  (viz.  of  the  ne- 
cessary or  optional  practice  of  external  confession,)  "I 
have  briefly  laid  open.  But  to  which  of  them  we  should 
rather  adhere,  is  reserved  to  the  judgment  of  the  reader- 
For  both  of  them  have  for  their  advocates  wise  and  reli- 
gious men."  (de  Psea.  dist.  1.  cap.  89.)  Such  was  the  state 
of  this  controversy  in  the  middle  of  the  twelfth  century, 
and  such  it  continued  until  the  council  of  Lateran,  in  1215, 
riveted  upon  the  understandings  and  consciences  of  Chris- 
tians, a  double  yoke  of  unprecedented  severity,  by  decree- 
ing at  the  same  time,  under  horrid  anathemas,  the  doc- 
trine of  transubstantiation,  and  the  obligation  of  confes- 
sion. 

The  reader  may  expect,  and  probably  also  wish,  that 
this  part  of  the  controversy  might  terminate  here,  but  the 
range  taken  in  the  Appendix  is  so  wide,  and  marked  with 
sucli  an  air  of  confidence  and  triumph,  that  not  to  notice 
it  in  some  degree,  might  appear  like  an  abandonment  of 
truth  to  the  glare  of  cumbrous  and  ostentatious  theology. 
Whatever  displays  are  made  in  the  Appendix  of  the  ad- 
vantages of  confession,  of  the  exliortations  of /)iows  m.en  to 
practice  it,  of  its  henejits  to  Church  and  State,  of  the  im- 
probability of  a  voluntary  suhinission  to  so  humiliating  a 
practice  ;  of  its  having  been  adopted  by  sick  and  dying 
persons,  by  armies,  kings,  and  emperors,  or  rather  by  some 
of  each  of  these  descriptions  of  persons,  of  its  having  been 
sanctioned  by  miracles  and  prodigies;  all  these  add  no 
force  to  arguments  in  support  of  auricular  sacramental 
confession,  ^nA  judicial  absolution,  unless  it  can  be  proved 
^-hat  such  was  the  very  confession  always  understood  and 
j[>ractised  in  the  Church,  and  afterwards  defined  and  com- 


259 

manded  by  the  council  of  Trent.  Now,  this  never  was, 
and  never  can  be  proved.  From  the  wholesome  discipline 
of  the  primitive  Church,  as  sanctioned  by  the  Scriptures^ 
for  the  legitimate  exercise  of  the  ministerial  office  in  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  reconciliation  of  the  sinner,  con- 
fession underwent  many  gradual  alterations  :  it  was  occa- 
sionally modified,  as  circumstances  required,  or  as  the 
warm  imaginations  of  some  ecclesiastical  rulers,  and  the 
interested  views  of  others,  added  to  its  importance.  Like 
many  bodily  austerities  and  humiliating  restraints,  confes- 
sion began  to  be  unduly  appreciated,  and  in  the  lamentable 
depression  of  biblical  knowledge  and  sound  theology,  was 
too  often,  as  was  observed  above,  made  a  substitute  for 
faith  in  the  atonement  and  intercession  of  Christ.  It  is 
among  those  galling  fetters  and  grievous  burthens,  which 
a  mistaken  devotion  has,  in  every  religion,  deemed  ef- 
fectual towards  propitiating  the  offended  deity,*  and  al- 
though a  manifest  perversion,  is  a  striking  evidence  of  the 
innate  and  universal  conviction  of  mankind,  that  without 
some  adequate  satisfaction,  some  painful  sacrifice,  there 
can  be  no  forgiveness  of  sins.f  Being  considered  as  an  ob- 
servance conducive  to  piety  by  men  of  retired  and  scho- 
lastic habits,  it  was  first  established  as  a  point  of  disci- 
pline,  and  by  the  Lateran  council  enjoined  as  such.  It  had 
previously,  indeed,  been  adopted  by  many,  who  venerated 
every  institution  recommended  in  the  cloister,  or  practised 
by  such  as  were  renowned  for  their  holiness.  Supported 
by  idle  and  fictitious  tales,  to  enforce  the  advantages,  and 
then  the  necessity  of  the  practice,  it  arrived,  by  imper- 
ceptible gradations,  to  such  importance,  as  to  become  an 
indispensable  precept.  Will  the  Rev.  gentleman  deny, 
that  this  can  be  the  rise  and  progress  of  such  burthensome 
observances?     Can  he    point  out,  for  instance,  the  time, 

*  eheu! 

Quam  temere  in  nosraet  legem  sancimus  iniquam  ? — Horace. 
+  See  Magee  on  the  Atonement,  No.  V. 


260 

when  the  strict  obligation  of  reciting  daily  the  ecclesiasti- 
cal office,  or  breviary,  under  the  penalty  of  damnation,  was 
imposed  upon  the  Roman  clergy  ;  or  will  he  consider  it  of 
divine  appointment?  Yet  this  is  also  a  most  burthensome 
task  imposed  upon  themselves  under  the  most  awful  sanc- 
tions, and  frequently,  it  is  to  be  feared,  giving  rise  to  a 
mockery  of  religious  worship  in  light  minds,  or  creating 
uneasiness  in  the  consciences  of  the  scrupulously  pious. 

From  what  has  been  already  said,  the  reader  I  trust  will 
feel  himself  authorized  to  conclude,  that  the  divine  right  of 
sacramental  confession,  was  unknown  in  the  Church  before 
the  thirteenth  century.  And,  indeed,  where  was  the  ne- 
cessity of  a  solemn  decree  by  the  Lateran  council,  if  the 
doctrine  had  been  previously  established  1  However,  this 
important  fact  can  be  placed,  I  think,  beyond  the  reach  of 
uncertainty. 

Many  passages  from  the  writings  of  Bonaventure,  Tho- 
mas Aquinas,  and  others,  may  be  found  in  Protestant  po- 
lemical authors,  pointedly  asserting,  that  before  the  council 
of  Lateran,  in  1215,  the  opinion  of  confessing  to  God  only 
was  allowed  in  the  Church  ;  and  the  fear  of  satiating  the 
reader  with  quotations,  is  the  only  motive  for  omitting 
them  :  one  or  two  may  suffice.  "  The  master  of  the  sen- 
tences," says  St.  Thomas  and  Gratian,  "  mentions  this  as 
an  opinion,"  that  is,  the  necessity  of  confession  to  God 
alone  ;  "  but  now,  after  the  determination  of  the  Church 
under  Innocent  III.  it  is  to  be  accounted  heresy."  The 
date,  therefore,  of  this  dogma,  goes  no  further  back  than 
the  thirteenth  century :  and  however  the  Rev.  gentleman 
may  qualify  as  heretical  all  the  Protestant  Churches  of  the 
present  day,  yet  surely,  if  he  credit  the  angelical  doctor, 
he  will  hardly  extend  his  denunciations  to  those  divines 
who  lived  before  the  council  of  Lateran.  Nay,  since  that 
council,  many  orthodox  Roman  Catholic  writers  have  ques- 
tioned the  absolute  validity  of  its  decisions ;  of  which 
number  are  the  commentator  on  the  decretals  of  Gratian, 


261 

Scotus,  the  abbot  Panorrnitanus,  Michael  of  Bologna,  and 
some  others,  to  say  nothing  of  Erasmus,  Rhenanus,  cardinal 
Cajetan,  and  Richer,  divines  of  a  still  more  modern  date.  It 
appears  from  "  Pere  Richard's  analyse  des  conciles,''^  pub- 
lished at  Paris,  with  approbation  of  the  censors,  in  1772, 
in  four  volumes  quarto,  that  sinners  vi^ere  sometimes  re- 
fused absolution  in  the  article  of  death  ;  yet  were  they  ad- 
mitted to  the  Eucharist  without  the  reconciliatory  imposi- 
tion of  hands,  to  use  the  words  of  the  council  of  Orange  in 
four  hundred  forty-one,  which  is  sufficient  for  the  consola- 
tion of  the  dying.  And  afterwards  the  council  of  Mentz, 
in  eight  hundred  forty-seven,  (can.  27,)  mentions  it  as  the 
discipline  of  that  time,  that  criminals  were  to  receive  the 
Eucharist  if  they  appeared  truly  penitent,  and  had  con- 
fessed  their  sins  to  God:  for,  says  Pere  Longueval  in  his 
history  of  the  Gallican  Church,  (torn.  5.  p.  549,)  "they 
were  not  always  allowed  to  confess  to  a  priest."  Thus  do 
modern  divines  of  the  Romish  communion  freely  deliver 
the  opinions  of  the  primitive  and  middle  ages  on  the  sub- 
ject of  confession.  They  do  not  even  hint  that  they  were 
founded  on  any  divine  right,  and  indispensable  necessity — ■ 
and  the  learned  Richer,  after  passing  in  review  all  the  pas- 
sages from  the  fathers,  &c.  mentioned  in  the  Appendix,  in- 
genuously acknowledges,  that  none  of  them  relate  to  sacra- 
mental confession.  "  Quorum  patrum  testimonia  perpe^^ 
ram  a  nonnullis  ad  nostram  sacramentalem  confessionem 
trahuntur." 

With  respect  to  the  benefits  of  auricular  confession,  so 
much  insisted  on  by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  it  might  be  rea- 
dily proved  that  it  was  deemed  a  dangerous  institution, 
even  by  the  popes  themselves.  We  find  that  bulls  have 
been  published  by  Pius  IV.  and  Gregory  XV. — "  Contra 
sacerdotes,  qui  mulieres  paenitentes  in  actu  confessionis  ad 
actus  inhonestos  provocare  et  allicere  tentant."  Young 
and  pampered  ecclesiastics,  placed  in  delicate  situations  of 
this  kind,  cannot  be  always  exempt  from  temptation  :  noc 


262 

is  the  fact  to  be  unnoticed,  that  young  persons  of  either 
sex,  and  more  particularly  those  of  a  timorous  and  modest 
disposition,  by  the  information  they  must  acquire  from  their 
tables  of  sins,  the  circumstantial  cautions  given  them  against 
vice,  and  the  details  into  which  they  must  necessarily  en- 
ter, frequently  have  their  imaginations  perplexed  and  tor- 
tured by  unreasonable  apprehensions  of  continual  danger 
and  mortal  guilt.  By  investigating  all  the  ramifications  of 
sinful  acts  and  propensities,  they  become  far  better  ac- 
quainted with  vice  in  all  its  shapes,  and  their  minds  more 
harassed,  if  not  more  defiled,  than  pious  Christians  of  other 
denominations:  for  it  is  found  by  experience,  that  nothing 
contributes  rtiore  to  the  progress  of  vice  in  some  persons, 
by  whom  it  might  otherwise  have  never  been  admitted, 
than  the  knowledge  that  it  has  sometimes  been  actually 
committed.  A  natural  aversion  and  shame  attends  the  com- 
mission of  certain  crimes,  oftentimes  alone  sufficient  to 
prevent  them,  were  it  never  acknowledged  that  such  pro- 
pensities had  ever  been  indulged. 

However,  allowing  all  that  is  said  in  the  Appendix  re- 
lating to  the  advantages  attending  confession  of  sins,  which 
advantages  are  often  very  questionable,  and,  unless,  per- 
fectly optional,  sometimes  counterbalanced  by  much  delu- 
sion and  mischief;  allowing  that  Protestant  divines,  and 
Churches  in  general,  contend  earnestly  for  the  exercise  of 
the  power  left  by  Christ  in  the  Church  for  the  forgiveness 
of  sins,  by  declaring  in  his  name  those  to  be  absolved  who, 
with  sincere  faith  and  true  repentance,  confess  and  deplore 
their  manifold  sins  and  wickedness,  (and  the  w^ords  cited 
from  the  great  and  good  bishop  Andrews  mean  nothing 
more.)  Allowing,!  say,  all  this,  and  as  much  moreof  the  same 
strain  as  the  Rev.  gentleman  may  choose,  what  additional 
weight  can  it  add  to  his  opinions  ?  Will  he  pretend  that 
Protestant  divines,  when  appreciating  the  advantages  of 
confession,  consider  it  in  the  same  light  as  he  does,  or 
that  they  ascribe  to  it  any  divine  right  or  judicial  absolu- 


263 

tion  ?  If  not,  then  such  authorities  make  nothing  to  hig 
purpose.  The  passage,  indeed,  which  he  quotes  from  a 
Mr.  Bayle,  is  more  exactly  in  point :  but  who  this  Episco- 
palian doctor  of  the  English  Church  may  be,  the  writer  of 
this  Reply  has  yet  to  learn.  Surely  the  Rev.  gentleman 
cannot  be  so  far  deceived  as  to  mistake  this  Mr.  Bayle  for 
the  celebrated  author  of  the  general,  historical,  and  criti- 
cal Dictionary  ;  if  so,  the  English  Church  will  freely  re- 
sign all  her  pretensions  to  him,  and  ihe  Romish,  or  any 
other  communion,  is  welcome  to  his  authority.  Should, 
however,  there  be  possibly  such  a  writer  of  the  Episcopal 
Church,  or  the  Rev.  gentleman  have  mistaken  his  name,  he 
must  be  too  obscure  to  oppose  any  weight  of  testimony 
against  the  explicit  and  acknowledged  doctrine  of  all  the 
reformed  Churches.*  Therefore  the  divine  right  and  in- 
dispensable  obligation  of  sacramental  confession,  was  no 
article  of  Christian  faith  before  the  thirteenth  century  :  and 
all  the  declamation  employed  to  establish  it  is  a  mere  so- 
phism, which  the  whole  course  of  Church  history  tends  to 
refute.  With  good  reason,  therefore,  did  the  learned 
Richer  conclude,  that  ^^  inward  confession  is  indeed  of 
divine  right,  but  outward  is  only  oi positive  right,  and  sub- 
ject to  such  alterations  as  the  Church  may  appoint."  "  Qua- 
propter  fide  Catholica  tenendum  internam  confessionem,  et 
mentis  mutalionem  esse  juris  divini  et  naturalis  plane  im- 
mutabilis,  modum  vero  extrinsecum  ut  secrete,  aut  publice 
peccata  confiteamur  omnino  a  prudenti  Ecclesia3  dispensa- 
tione  pendere  ;  consequenterque  modum  hunc  externum 
confitendi  juris  esse  positivi,  aut  Ecclesiastici  variabilis, 
sicut  et  ritus  reliquorum  sacramentorura,  quos  Christus  re- 
liquit  Ecclesiae  moderationi." 

This  is  nearly  the  general  opinion  of  Protestants,  and 

*  Since  writing  the  above,  I  find  the  passage  is  from  Dr.  Bayley,  bishop  of 
Bangor,  in  the  reign  of  James  I.  The  Puritans  claimed  the  book  from  which 
it  is  taken  ;  be  this  as  it  may,  his  authority  avails  nothing  against  the  practice 
of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the  meaning  of  her  liturgy. 


264 

with  an  exception  or  two,  is  rational  and  wise  ;  how  it  can 
be  reconciled  to  the  decrees  of  the  council  of  Trent,  which 
it  is  alleged  to  support,  must  be  left  to  the  ingenuity  of  its 
advocates  to  decide. 

We  say  that  the  nature  of  ministerial  absolution  as  de- 
fined by    the  council  of  Trent,  and   now  practised  in   the 
Church  of  Rome,    appears  to    be    repugnant   to   ancient 
usage,  to  the  principles  of  common  sense,  and  unsupported 
by  Scripture.     With  respect  to  ancient  usage,  what  can  be 
more  conclusive  than  the  concessions  of  some  of  the  Ro- 
mish divines  themselves?     Morinus  {De pcBa.  lib.  8.  c.  8, 
9,  10,  and  20.)  acknowledges,  that   the  judiciary  form,  / 
absolve,  instead    of  the  deprecatory,  may    Christ  absolve, 
was  not  introduced   before   the    eleventh   or   twelfth  cen- 
tury ;  till  which  time,  absolutioji  was  invariably  given  by 
prayer,  as  is  evident  from  many  of  the  ancient  rituals  pub- 
lished by   this  writer.     We  read  moreover  in  the  works  of 
Thomas  Aquinas,  (opusc.  22.   cap.  5.)  that  in   his   days  a 
learned  writer  objected   to  the  indicative  form  of  absolu- 
tion then  used    by  the  priest,  I  absolve  thee  from  all   thy 
sins,  and  preferred    the   mode  of  deprecation  and  prayer; 
alleging  that  this  was   the  opinion  of  Gulielmus  Altisiodo- 
rensis,  William    of  Paris,  and    cardinal   Hugo,   and   that 
thirty  years    had  scarcely   elapsed,    since  all  made  use  of 
this  form  only,  "  Absolutionem  et  remissionem  tribuat  tibi 
omnipotens  Deus."     "  May  Almighty  God  give  unto  thee 
absolution  and  forgiveness."  7^he  answer  of  Thomas  Aqui- 
nas to  this  assertion  may  be  seen  in  his  small  treatise  "Of 
the  form  of  Absolution,"  which  on  this  occasion  he  wrote 
to  the  general  of  his  order.     One  ancient  form  of  absolu- 
tion used  in    the  Latin  Church  was  this:  "Almighty  God 
be  merciful  unto  thee,  and   forgive  thee  all  thy  sins,  past, 
present,  and  to  come,  visible  and  invisible,  which  thou  hast 
committed  before  him  and  his  saints,  which  thou  hast  con- 
fessed, or   by  some   negligence,  or  forgetfulness,  or  evil 
will,  hast  concealed  :  God  deliver  thee  from  all  evil  here 


265 

and  hereafter,  preserve  and  confirm  thee  always  in  every 
good  work  ;  and  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  living  God,  bring 
thee  unto  the  life  which  remaineth  without  end."  (CoU' 
Jltentium  ceremonias,  Antiqiu  edit.  Colon,  an.  1530.)  As 
late  as  the  beginning  of  the  seventeenth  century,  we  have 
the  opinion  of  Jeremiah,  the  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 
on  this  subject :  "  Whatsoever  sins,"  says  he,  "  the  peni- 
tent, either  from  shamefacedness,  or  forgetfulness,  leaves 
unconfessed,  we  pray  thee,  most  merciful  God,  that  those 
also  may  be  pardoned  unto  him,  and  we  are  persuaded, 
that  he  shall  receive  pardon  of  them  from  God."  (Jerem. 
Pair.  C  P.  respons.  l,ad.  Tubingences,  cap.  11.*)  Alex* 
ander  of  Hales  and  Bonaventure,  speaking  of  the  form  of 
absolution  used  in  their  time,  observe  "  that  prayer  was 
premised  in  the  optative,  and  absolution  added  afterwards 
in  the  indicative  mood ;^^  hence  they  conclude  that  the 
priest's  prayer  obtains  grace,  his  absolution  presupposes  it; 
that  by  the  former  he  ascends  unto  God,  and  procures  par* 
don  for  the  fault,  by  the  latter  he  descends  to  the  sinner, 
and  reconciles  him  to  the  Church."  (Jllex.  Halens.  sum. 
part  4.  quaes.  21. — Bonav.  in.  4  senien.  dist.  18.  art.  9., 
quses.  1.)  "Although  a  man  be  loosed  before  God,"  says 
the  master  of  sentences,  (Jih.  4.  sent.  dist.  18.)  "  yet  is  he 
not  accounted  loosened  in  the  face  of  the  Church,  except 
by  the  judgment  of  the  priest."  This  loosening  by  the 
judgment  of  the  priest,  is  generally  considered  by  the  fa* 
thers  as  nothing  more  than  a  restoration  of  offenders  to  the 
peace  of  the  Church,  or  a  re-admission  of  them  to  the  holy 
communion,  and  accordingly  they  usually  express  it  by  the 
terms   of    "bringing  them  to  the  communion;"  {Concil 


*  Dr.  Cowell,  in  his  account  of  the  Greek  Church,  declares,  on  his  person- 
al knowledge,  that  confession  is  not  required  from  all:  although  there  are 
confessors  appointed  in  the  several  districts  ;  very  few  in  proportion  to  the 
population.  Dr.  Smith,  in  his  account  of  the  same  Church,  represents  con- 
fession as  required  of  all,  but  governed  in  extent  by  the  prudence  of  the 
confessing  party,  and  according  to  his  knowledge  of  his  own  case. 

z 


266 

Laodinan,  can,  2.)  "  reconciling  them  to,  or  with  the  com- 
munion ;"  (Cone,  Eliberitan.  can,  72.)  "  restoring  the 
communion  to  them ;"  (^Ambr,  de  paea,  lib,  1.  &;c.)  "  ad- 
mitting them  to  fellowship;"  (Cyrp,  epist,  53.)  "granting 
them  peace,"  &c.  (^Ibid,  <^c.)  Now  in  all  these  acts  of 
discipline  we  never  find  any  using  the  form,  I  absolve  thee 
from  all  thy  sins,  which  words,  nevertheless,  the  council  of 
Trent  decrees  to  be  "the  form  of  the  sacrament  of  pe- 
nance, and  in  which  its  virtue  and  efficacy  principally 
consist." 

It  would  be  a  waste  of  labour  to  prosecute  this  subject 
any  further  in  order  to  establish  the  fact,  that  before  the 
councils  of  Lateran  and  Trent,  neither  the  indispensable 
necessity  of  sacramental  confession,  nor  the  present  form 
of  absolution,  nor  penance  as  a  sacrament  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  were  doctrines  admitted  and  believed  among 
her  articles  of  faith  :  they  possessed  not  the  sanction 
arising  from  all  ages,  all  places,  and  all  Christian  Churches. 
They  were  never  considered  as  a  dogma,  ("  quod  semper, 
quod  ubique,  quod  ab  omnibus,'''')  which  was  numbered 
among  the  tenets  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

And,  indeed,  how  could  this  practice,  as  defined  and 
enjoined  by  the  council  of  Trent,  have  been  ever  viewed 
in  this  light?  Does  not  the  idea  of  a  man's  sitting  in 
judgment  over  the  most  secret  sins  of  his  fellow  mortals, 
and  pronouncing  definitively  and  juridically  upon  them, 
effectually  removing  the  guilt  of  some,  or  retaining  that 
of  others,  shock  the  obvious  principles  of  common  sense, 
and  encroach  upon  that  inviolable  privilege  of  concealing 
our  thoughts,  so  essential  to  the  human  mind  ?*  But, 
above  all  other  considerations,  how  plain  and  explicit 
ought  to  be  the  terms  of  a  commission  which  seems  to 
trench  upon   the  attributes  of  the  Deity  himself,  by  cora- 

*  Feeling,  in  some  subjects,  is  paramount  to  reason.    To  feel  that  we  are 
free,  says  Bishop  Horsley,  is  the  best  argument  to  prove  that  we  are  so. 


267 

municating  any  one  of  them  to  sinful  man  !  It  was  by  his 
incommunicable  power  to  forgive  sins,  that  Christ  first 
evinced  his  divinity  to  the  world  ;  and  it  was  from  the  ex- 
ercise of  this  power  that  the  ancient  fathers  drew  their 
great  argument  for  this  fundamental  truth.*  Now,  if 
priests  had  pretended,  in  their  days,  to  any  thing  more 
than  a  declaratory  or  ministerial  power,  this  argument 
would  not  have  been  conclusive,  for  it  might  have  been  re- 
plied that  Christ's  power  was  also  derived  from  God  ;  that 
he  acted  in  the  capacity  of  his  minister,  and  in  his  name. 
And  if  it  be  said  that,  in  the  exercise  of  this  power, 
Christ  performed  many  [stupendous  miracles,  was  not  this 
the  case  also  with  many  of  the  Romish  saints,  provided 
any  credit  be  given  to  the  history  of  their  lives. 

The  divine  prerogative  of  forgiving  sin,  as  belonging  to, 
and  exercised  by  our  Saviour,  is  clearly  explained,  and  de- 
voutly enforced  by  the  Rev.  gentleman,  and  must  meet  the 
assent  of  every  Christian  reader ;  nor  will  it  be  denied, 
that  this  power  was  imparted  by  Christ  to  his  Apostles  and 
their  successors  in  the  ministry,  in  a  manner  best  suited  to 
the  merciful  plan  of  reconciling  sinners  to  their  offended 
Maker.  But,  like  other  attributes  of  the  Deity,  this  also 
could  be  communicated  to  mortals,  only  in  a  limited  and 
restricted  sense.  Christ  says,  indeed,  to  his  Apostles, 
"  As  my  father  hath  sent  me,  even  so  send  I  you."  (John 
XX.  21.)  After  which  words,  the  Rev.  gentleman  adds, 
with  a  hardihood  of  expression,  at  least  unbecoming :  *'  He 
hath  sent  me  to  savethe  world,  {John  iii.  17.)  you  also  shall 
become  in  some  sort  its  saviours."  The  text  is  this  : 
"  God  sent  not  his  Son  into  the  world  to  condemn  the 
world,  but  that  the  world  through  him  might  be  saved." 
If  ministers  also  be  sent  for  this  purpose,  truly  the  excep- 
tion, in  some  sort,  must  qualify   their  mission,  and  it  may 

t  See  Irenaeus,  lib.  v.  c.  17 — ^Tertul.  contra  Marcion,  lib.  iv.  c.  10. — 
Athan,  oral.  iv.  contra  Arian.  Basil  contra  Eunomium.  Hilary  in  Si. 
Matt.  &c.  &c. 


268 

equally  apply  to  their  delegated  power  of  remitting  or  re- 
taining sins.  They  have  authority  to  do  both  ;  but  in  a 
qualified,  limited,  and  improper  sense,  either  by  separating 
from  Church  communion,  public  and  impenitent  offenders, 
and  in  restoring  to  it,  such  as  are  penitent,  or  by  declar- 
ing and  pronouncing,  in  general  terms,  that  absolution  and 
remission  of  sins  is  promised  and  granted  by  Almighty 
God,  to  all  those,  who,  with  hearty  repentance  and  true 
faith,  turn  unto  him.  "  But,"  says  the  Rev.  gentleman, 
"  that  it  should  not  be  understood  that  they  had  to  an- 
nounce, or  proclaim  it  only,  or  to  promise  it  on  his  part, 
he  associates  them  with  him  in  this  divine  power.  He 
wishes  that  they  themselves  should  remit  sin;  that  they 
should  remit  it  in  his  name  and  on  his  part ;  he  imparts  his 
authority  to  them  to  save  sinners.  He  engages  himself  to 
ratify  in  heaven  the  sentence  they  shall  have  pronounced 
on  earth." 

The  lofty  strain  of  prerogative  which  runs  through  this 
and  other  passages  of  the  Appendix,  must  excite  painful, 
if  not  indignant  feelings,  in  all  who  have  not  pinned  their 
faith  upon  the  council  of  Trent.  They  will  naturally  ask 
the  question.  Whether  the  guilt  of  sin,  can,  with  any  pro- 
priety, be  said  to  be  forgiven  by  any  but  God  alone  1  Can 
any  but  the  Divine  Lawgiver  pardon  the  guilt  attached  to 
the  violation  of  his  lawsl  Can  any  thing  but  his  grace 
blot  out  the  deadly  stain,  and  restore  the  vitiated  soul  to 
his  favour?  Can  any  thing  short  of  this,  raise  up  one  who 
is  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins,  and  clothe  the  soul  in  the 
robes  of  righteousness?  Is,  indeed,  the  priest  associated 
with  God  in  the  power  of  forgiving  sin  ;  or  is  not  this  God's 
special  and  incommunicable  property  ?  A  collect  of  the 
Roman  Church  begins  with  these  words :  "  Deus,  cui  pro- 
prium  est  misereri  semper  et  parcere,"  iSjc.  "  O  God, 
whose  property  it  is  to  have  mercy  always,  and  to  spare," 
&c  :  in  other  words,  *'  to  whom  alone  it  belongs  to  pity 
and  pardon  repenting  sinners."     The   prayer  which  is  of* 


269 

fered  up  by  the  priest,  before  he  pronounces  the  absolu- 
tion, proves  that  the  latter  can  only  be  ministerial  and  de- 
claratory. After  receiving  the  confession  of  the  penitent, 
accompanied,  as  he  conceives,  with  satisfactory  marks  of 
inward  repentance,  the  priest  is  directed  to  pray  for  him  in 
the  following  words  :  "  Misereatur  tui"  dec.  "Almighty 
God  have  mercy  upon  thee,  and,  thy  sins  being  forgiven, 
lead  thee  to  eternal  life.  Amen."  "  Indulgentiam^''''  &c. 
"  The  Almighty  and  Merciful  Lord  grant  thee  pardon, 
absolution,  and  remission  of  thy  sins.  Amen."  "  Domi- 
nus  noster,^^  &;c.  "  May  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  absolve 
thee  :  and  I,  by  his  authority,  absolve  thee  from  every 
bond  of  excommunication,  suspension,  and  interdict,  as 
far  as  I  am  able,  and  thou  requirest."  "  Deinde."  "  And 
then  (or  after  this,  after  God  has  forgiven  thee,  pardoned 
and  absolved  thee  from  thy  sins)  I  absolve  thee  from  thy 
sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  Amen."  Now,  who  does  not  perceive  in 
these  short  prayers,  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  discipline  of 
the  Church,  mitigated,  indeed,  but  still  retained  in  some 
measure  ?  After  removing,  by  a  delegated  authority,  the 
penalty  of  excommunication  from  the  penitent,  if  a  lay- 
man, and  of  suspension,  if  in  orders,  and  thus  restoring 
him  to  the  fellowship  of  the  faithful,  after  praying  that 
"  God  would  grant  him  pardon,  absolution,  and  remission 
of  his  sins,"  with  full  assurance  that  this  exercise  of  out- 
ward discipline  is  ratified,  and  this  prayer  is  heard  in  hea- 
ven, for  true  and  Gospel  penitents  ;  he  then,  deinde,  "  ab- 
solves him  from  his  sins,  in  the  name  of  the  Holy  Trinity  ,♦" 
that  is,  in  this  glorious  name,  he  pronounces  and  declares 
that  very  absolution,  for  which  he  had  previously  prayed, 
and  which  was  certainly  granted  before  it  was  proclaimed, 
if  granted  at  all.  Thus  the  very  form  of  absolution,  pre- 
scribed in  the  Roman  ritual,  materially  lowers  the  high 
and  decisive   tone  of  that   ministerial   act,  and  brings  it 

z2 


270 

nearly  to  a  level  with  the  doctrine  of  Calvin,  above  men- 
tioned, and  of  other  Protestant  divines. 

But  if  this  be  the  case,  it  will  probably  be  said,  why 
have  recourse  to  any  minister  at  all  ?  Why  make  any  public 
or  private  confession  of  sins,  in  order  to  be  assured  of  their 
forgiveness,  or  what  benefit  can  arise  from  any  kind  of  ab- 
solution in  the  sense  admitted  by  Protestants?  The  answer 
is,  because  the  minister  of  God  is  his  delegated  functionary 
to  declare  the  terms  of  reconciliation  and  salvation  held 
forth  in  the  Gospel ;  "  for  he  is  the  messenger  of  the  Lord 
of  Hosts,"  and  "  they  should  seek  the  law  at  his  mouth." 
[Mai,  ii.  7.)  The  ministers  remit  sin,  as  the  Apostles  did, 
"  by  the  word  of  God,  by  the  testimonies  of  the  Scripture, 
and  by  exhortations  to  virtue."  {St,  Jerom.  in  ha,  xiv.  17.) 
They  are  supposed  to  be  men  of  integrity,  piety,  and  know- 
ledge ;  to  have  studied  the  human  heart ;  to  be  best  ac- 
quainted with  the  motives  that  lead  to  piety,  and  with  the 
preservatives  against  vice.  They  are,  moreover,  delegated 
in  a  special  manner  to  assure  a  sinner  for  his  comfort,  that, 
according  to  their  best  judgment,  he  has  complied  with  the 
conditions  required  by  Almighty  God,  and  is  entitled  to 
forgiveness  and  pardon  on  the  Gospel  terms. 

And  what  is  it,  after  all,  that  the  priests  of  the  Roman 
Church  do  more  than  this,  when  their  own  doctrines  are 
fairly  stated?  They,  indeed,  pronounce  penitents  absolved 
by  positive  assurance,  and  as  they  say,  by  a  judicial  exer- 
cise of  a  power  inherent  in  them :  but  even  this  is  only 
upon  the  presumption  of  a  sincere  repentance,  without 
which  they  allow  that  it  is  not  iatifi,ed  in  heaven.  In  the 
primitive  Church,  absolution  was  never  granted  until  a  se- 
vere penance  had  actually  been  performed ;  but  now  it  is 
given  on  a  mere  promise  of  submitting  to  one  that  is  very 
slight ;  nay,  is  considered  as  valid,  although  this  penance 
should  not  be  performed  at  all ;  for  were  this  not  the  case, 
tiie  absolution  would  be  only  conditional.  It  follows,  there- 
fore, that  the  absolution  in  the  Roman  ritual,  is  in  reality^ 


271 

like  that  of  the  Protestant  Churches,  strictly  declaratory^ 
with  this  only  difference,  that  Protestants  acknowledge  it, 
and  Roman  Catholics  will  not,  although,  according  to  their 
own  principles,  it  cannot  possibly  be  any  thing  more. 

With  respect,  however,  to  this  private  absolution,  in 
whatever  light  it  be  considered,  it  is  a  ministerial  act  of 
modern  date,  never  mentioned  nor  hinted  at  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, nor  known  to  the  primitive  fathers.  Whoever  will 
read  St.  Augustin's  letter  to  Macedonius,  will  be  convinced, 
that  in  his  time,  public  penance  was  never  granted  but 
once,  and  private  absolution  never  at  all.  "  La  reponse  de 
St.  Augustin,"  (says  P.  Richard,  vol.  1.  p.  192.)  "  prouve 
invinciblement,qu'ilsneconnoissoientpas  deux  sortesde  pe- 
nitence, et  d'absolution.  Tune  publique,  qu'on  ne  recevoit, 
qu'une  fois ;  et  I'autre  secrete,  a  laquelle  on  etoit  admis 
autant  de  fois  que  Ton  tomboit  dans  le  peche."  The 
contrary  opinion,  he  adds,  is  indefensible,  (insoutenable,) 
Now,  the  council  of  Trent  allows,  that  public  confession 
was  not  commanded  ;  and  it  was,  moreover,  never  enjoined, 
but  for  public  offences  of  the  most  flagitious  nature.  Many 
others,  though  of  a  mortal  or  deadly  nature,  such  as  pride, 
detraction,  anger,  breach  of  trust,  private  enmity,  treachery, 
lying,  intemperance,  &c.  together  with  sinful  thoughts  and 
desires,  did  not  exclude  men  from  the  Lord's  table,  if  blot- 
ted out  by  tears,  prayers,  and  contrition.  "  Three  ways," 
says  St.  Augustin,  (de  Sym.  ad  Catec.  lib.  i.  c.  7.)  "  are 
sins  remitted  in  the  Church,  by  baptism,  by  prayer,  and  by 
submitting  to  the  humiliation  of  the  greater  penance."  No 
mention  is  here  made,  either  directly  or  indirectly,  of  pri- 
vate confession  and  judicial  absolution.  If,  then,  it  be  an 
incontrovertible  fact,  that  for  more  than  four  hundred  years 
after  Christ,  there  is  no  instance  of  absolution  but  such  as 
was  public,  and  that  this  was  only  granted  for  certain  sins ; 
it  evidently  follows,  that  there  were  many  mortal  sins,  of 
which  no  confession  was  required,  and  from  which  no  ju" 


272 

dicial  absolution  was  granted.  This  argument  admits  of 
no  answer,  nor  has  any,  I  believe,  been  ever  attempted. 

But  the  holy  (ecumenic  council  of  Trent,  as  the  Rev. 
gentleman  styles  it,  has  definitively  and  irrevocably  fixed 
the  meaning,  decreed  the  necessity,  and  enjoined  the  obli- 
gation of  auricular  sacramental  confession,  as  it  is  now 
adopted  and  practised  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  pro- 
nounced dreadful  anathemas  against  all  who  presume  to 
question  its  decisions.  These  it  grounds  upon  the  texts 
which  have  already  been  considered,  so  that  the  reader 
may  judge  of  their  claim  to  his  assent. 

To  assist  his  determination  on  so  weighty  a  point,  and 
to  abate,  if  possible,  the  confidence  on  this  subject,  which 
is  generally  derived  from  the  decrees  of  this  council,  it  may 
be  deemed  advisable  to  say  something  respecting  it  in  this 
part  of  our  reply. 

With  whatever  veneration  and  submission  Roman  Catho- 
lics believe  themselves  bound  to  receive  the  decrees  of  this 
council,  they  will  cease  to  command  respect,  from  those 
who  know  the  unbecoming  manner,  the  precipitation,  in 
which  the  whole  business  was  conducted,  by  the  haughty 
legate  Crescentio.  The  fact  is,  neither  caution,  nor  com- 
mon consent,  nor  universal  tradition,  was  consulted  in  fram- 
ing either  its  decrees  or  its  canons,  as  appears  not  only  from 
the  history  of  Fra.  Paolo,  but  from  authentic  letters  of 
several  bishops,  and  others,  who  were  present  at  it.  From 
these  it  is  manifest,  that  it  was  a  most  confused  and  irre- 
gular assembly — that  the  presiding  legatees  were  men  of 
consummate  artifice  and  dissimulation,  striving  perpetually 
to  sow  dissention  among  the  members  ; — that  most  of  the 
bishops  who  composed  the  council  were  men  of  very  mo- 
derate attainments,  little  conversant  either  in  theology  or 
ecclesiastical  antiquities ; — that  several  of  them  were  self- 
interested,  worldly  men,  ever  ready  to  stoop  to  the  most 
servile  flattery,  with  a  view  of  being  translated  to  more 


273 

opulent  sees  :* — that  all  the  prelates  were  much  dissatis- 
fied at  the  overwhelming  insolence  of  the  legate,  and  tired 
out  by  their  long  residence  at  Trent,  as  ruinous  to  them- 
selves and  their  people  ; — that  when  a  bishop  advanced  any 
thing  displeasing  to  the  legates,  they  first  interrupted  him 
with  a  degree  of  contemptuous  petulence,  which  gave  uni- 
versal ofFence,t  and  afterwards  omitted  neither  menaces  nor 
entreaties  to  bring  him  over  to  their  opinion, — that  there 
w^ere  but  seventy  bishops  in  the  whole  council,  who  were 
capable  of  discussing  any  point  of  theology, — that  the  de- 
crees, particularly  those  on  penance  and  tran substantiation, 
were  drawn  up  in  a  hurry,  by  a  few  creatures  of  the  legate, 
in  such  terms  as  he  thought  fit,  and  were  then  presented 
for  signing,  without  allowing  any  time  for  further  examina- 
tion ;X — that  the  doctors  of  Louvain,  and  the  divines  of  the 
Elector  of  Cologne,  were  obliged,  secretly,  to  correct  con- 
siderable mistakes  which  were  pointed  out  in  several  of 
the  decrees,  after  these  good  fathers  had  solemnly  approved 
of  them  in  a  public  session  ; — that  although  some  able  di- 
vines were  often  allowed  to  speak,  yet  they  were  little 
heeded  ;  and  never  permitted  to  attend,  while  the  doctrinal 
canons  were  drawn  up  ; — that  the  council  was  in  effect 
held  at  Rome,  between  which  place  and  Trent  messengers 

*  The  letters  of  several  of  these  bishops  might  readily  be  quoted,  all  full 
of  sentiments  of  this  nature. 

t  This  was  particularly  the  case  with  the  bishop  of  Verdun,  a  man  venera- 
ble for  his  piety  and  integrity,  whom  Crescentio,  in  the  public  assembly 
called  an  imprudent,  silly,  young  fellow.  Lett.  Varg,  26  November.  See 
also  the  memoirs  of  the  bishop  of  Orense. 

t  The  council  was  not  even  allowed  to  have  its  own  secretary  and  nota- 
ries, and  the  legates  employed  such  only  as  were  totally  devoted  to  them, 
hence  the  minutes  of  this  council,  have  never  even  been  suffered  to  appear; 
and  the  very  first  edition  of  the  council,  printed  at  Rome  by  Manucius,  was 
corrupted.  See  Richer,  1.  iv.  p.  2.  His.  Con.  Gen.  In  the  like  manner,  the 
Roman  edition  of  the  councils,  has  wholly  omitted  the  council  of  Basil: 
"  which,  (says  the  same  learned  man,)  is  an  action  worthy  of  the  absolute 
monarchy  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  determined  to  obtain  in  fact,  what  it 
cannot  defend  in  ri^^^"  Quod^'urenon  potest,  id  via  facti  consequi.  Lib. 
3.  Q,l, 


274 

were  constantly  passing,  and  that  they  only  executed  at 
Trent  the  determinations  of  the  pope  ; — that  whenever  any 
thing  was  likely  to  be  carried  against  them,  they  secured  a 
plurality  of  suffrages,  by  sending  for  a  fresh  supply  of 
voters; — that  whatever  was  proposed,  the  legates  always 
began  by  declaring  their  own  sentiments  on  the  subject ; — 
that  the  ambassadors  of  the  Emperor  Charles  V.  thought  so 
meanly  of  the  capacities  of  those  who  were  alone  admitted 
to  vote,  as  to  urge  the  necessity  of  consulting  the  universi- 
ties before  any  question  was  determined; — that  many  of 
the  bishops  were  pensioned  by  the  pope,  on  the  express 
condition  of  opposing  that  reformation  of  his  court,  so  loudly 
called  for  by  the  whole  Christian  world,  with  the  exception 
only  of  the  Roman  clergy  : — In  a  word,  never  did  Diosco- 
rus,  in  the  tumultuous  meeting  at  Ephesus,  behave  with 
greater  insolence  than  did  Crescentio  in  the  council  of 
Trent :  nor  was  that  assembly,  in  fact,  less  free,  though  this 
was  conducted  with  greater  art  and  caution. 

Fra.  Paolo  Sarpi,  the  theologian  and  counsellor  of  the 
Venitian  States,  a  man  universally  esteemed  by  all  his  con- 
temporaries, and  eminently  qualified  for  the  undertaking, 
has  left  us  the  history  of  the  proceedings  of  this  council,  to 
which  Palavicini's  publication  has  only  served  to  add 
greater  authority  and  credit.  While  the  first  has  shown 
how  much  may  be  said  against  it,  the  latter  has  proved  how 
little  can  be  said  in  its  favour.  The  history  of  the  council 
of  Trent  by  Fra.  Paolo  is  pronounced  by  Dr.  Johnson  to  be 
"  a  work  unequalled  for  the  judicious  disposition  of  the 
matter,  and  artful  texture  of  the  narration ;  commended  by 
Dr.  Burnet  as  the  completest  model  of  historical  writing ; 
and  celebrated  by  Mr.  Wotton  as  equivalent  to  any  produc- 
tion of  antiquity  ;  in  which  the  reader  finds  '  liberty  with- 
out licentiousness,  piety  without  hypocrisy,  freedom  of 
speech  without  neglect  of  decency,  severity  without  rigour, 
and  extensive  learning  without  ostentation.'  "  {John.  Life 
of  Fr.  Paolo.)    Such  is  the  history  of  Fra.  Paolo  Sarpi, 


275 

which  furnishes  us  with  the  disgusting  sketch  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Trent,  just  presented  to  the  reader.  If  it  be  said, 
that  he  was  a  secret  friend  to  the  reformation,  this  circum- 
stance will  probably  detract  from  the  credit  of  his  narrative, 
in  the  opinion  of  Roman  Catholics ;  but  what  will  they 
object  to  the  famous  Vargas,  who  assisted  at  the  council, 
and  lived  and  died  in  the  communion  of  their  Church? 
His  letters,  still  extant,  confirm  the  principal  facts  related 
by  Fra.  Paolo,  and  the  following  few  extracts  from  them 
may,  perhaps,  induce  some  to  pay  less  deference  to  this 
pretended  general  council  of  the  Christian  Church,  than 
they  have  heretofore  conceived  to  be  its  due.  An  appeal 
is  here  made  to  facts  related  by  Roman  Catholic  writers, 
with  which,  however,  they  never  intended  Protestants 
should  be  acquainted :  but  Providence  has  otherwise  or- 
dained it,  by  preserving  their  original  letters,  to  bear  testi- 
mony to  the  truth. 

"  The  council  can  do  nothing  of  itself,"  says  Vargas,  in 
a  letter  to  the  bishop  of  Arras,  dated  November  12  ;  "  it  is 
deprived  of  its  authority.  The  legate  is  absolute  master  of 
it,  and  conducts  every  thing  as  he  pleases.  After  this,  no- 
thing can  astonish  us,''  &c.  In  another  letter,  addressed 
to  the  same  prelate,  on  the  29th,  we  find  the  following  very 
striking  expressions  and  remarks  :  "  He,"  (the  legate,)  "  is 
lost  to  all  shame.  He  seeks  to  intimidate  us  by  his  haughty 
and  imperious  language.  He  treats  the  bishops  as  so  many 
slaves  ;  he  threatens  and  swears  that  he  will  leave  us.  The 
issue  of  the  council  will  be  such  as  I  always  foretold,  un- 
less God  prevent  it  by  a  miracle — he  has  got  through  that 
session  (the  fourteenth)  with  a  shameful  and  infamous  re- 
form. It  will  render  us  the  fable  and  laughing-stock  of 
the  universe — his  conduct  is  a  dishonour  to  God — the 
bishops  are  offended  at  it.  They  are  only  detained  here 
by  repeated  entreaties  and  solicitations — they  are  scan- 
dalized— all  the  sinews  of  ecclesiastical  discipline  are  re- 
laxed— the  riches  consecrated  to  God's  service  are  become 


276 

the  objects  of  a  scandalous  traffic.  By  these  measures, 
(general  councils)  the  court  of  Rome  will  hold  the  univer- 
sal Church  in  subjection.  The  law  suits  occasioned  by 
these  privileges  (of  wearing  the  tonsure)  are  a  mine  of  gold 
to  the  court  of  Rome.  It  is  lamentable  to  see  in  what 
manner  they  examine  and  define  the  doctrinal  points — the 
legate  manages  all  as  he  pleases,  without  either  counting 
or  weighing  the  suffrages  of  the  divines  and  bishops.  His 
Majesty  has  sent  many  able  divines  hither ;  and  the  dean 
and  other  doctors  of  Louvain  are  men  of  erudition  and 
piety  ;  but  they  are  not  called  in  to  give  their  opinions, 
when  the  doctrinal  canons  are  drawing  up.  Every  body 
complains  of  this — many  have  little  respect  for  such  de- 
crees. We  have  reason  to  think  that  the  pope^s  ministers 
intend  to  erect  into  articles  of  faith  many  doubtful  and  pro- 
hlematical  points.  If  they  continue  to  act  with  the  same 
precipitation,  they  will  lose  even  the  small  corner  of  the 
world,  which  still  remains  subject  to  their  obedience.  The 
prediction  of  St.  Paul  {cap.  ii.  Epis.  ii.  ad  Thess.  concern- 
ing the  falling  away  of  the  man  of  sin,  &;c.)  draws  near  to 
its  accomplishment  in  the  Church  of  Rome.  Many  wish 
that  the  council  had  never  been  assembled ;  and  would  to 
heaven  it  had  never  been  thought  of,"  (fee. 

Again,  he  tells  the  bishop  of  Arras :  "Many  bishops  de- 
liver their  suffrages  on  subjects  which  they  do  not  under- 
stand, and  are  not  even  capable  of  comprehending.  The 
doctors  of  Louvain,  and  the  divines  of  the  elector  of  Co- 
logne, and  some  others,  will  protest  against  the  council,  as 
well  as  the  Lutherans.  We  are  all  so  many  dumb  dogs — 
the  evils  of  the  Church  will  become  incurable,  and  abuses 
will  be  confirmed.  God  grant  that  that  blind  court  may 
be  converted.  This  only  serves  {lesjuges  conservateurs,,) 
to  embroil  together  the  two  powers,  ecclesiastical  and  civil, 
and  to  occasion  the  spending  of  much  money;  and  there- 
fore this  abuse  is  confirmed,  instead  of  being  abolished," 
&c.  See  his  Letters  of  November  26,  December  29,  and 
20th  and  25th  January,  1552. 


277 

Such  is  the  account  of  the  council  given  by  Varo-as  a 
man  eminent  in  the  Jaw,  who  was  employed  at  Trent  by 
the  emperor  Charles  V.  From  his  writings  he  appears  to 
have  been  a  person  of  great  integrity  and  erudition,  an  able 
divine  and  canonist,*  though,  from  early  prejudices,  warmly 
opposed  to  the  Reformation.  He  was  a  member  of  the  so- 
vereign council  of  Castile;  was  highly  esteemed  by  Pope 
Pius  IV.;  after  the  conclusion  of  the  council  of  Trent,  he 
filled  the  most  important  offices  at  Venice,  at  Rome,  and  in 
Spain,  and  was  finally  made  counsellor  of  state.  Whatever 
he  relates  is  from  his  personal  knowledge  and  observations, 
and  is  confirmed  by  the  testimony  still  extant  of  several  of 
the  Spanish  bishops,  and  of  Malvenda,  a  doctor  of  Paris. 
Moreover,  his  memoirs  and  letters  are  addressed  to  the 
famous  Anthony  Perennot,  bishop  of  Arras,  minister  of 
Charles  V.  and  afterwards  archbishop  of  Mecklin,  and  of 
Besan^on,  so  well  known  in  the  annals  of  those  times,  by 
the  name  of  cardinal  Granville.  This  prelate  was  an  inve- 
terate and  cruel  enemy  to  the  Protestants :  "  Sa  conduite 
imperieuse  et  tyrannique,"  say  the  authors  of  the  Nouveau 
Dictionaire  Ilistorique,  printed  at  Caen,  "  et  ses  cruautes 
centre  les  Protestans,  qu'il  faisoit  bruler  impitoyablement, 
souleverent  les  peuples  centre  lui,  et  il  fut  obilge  de  s'en- 
fuir  en  Espagne."  And  yet,  nevertheless,  from  his  answers 
to  Malvenda,  Dom.  Francis  of  Toledo,  Vargas,  and  others, 
fie  seems  to  be  fully  persuaded  of  the  truth  of  this  honest 
writer's  information.! 

Such  being  the  authenticated  account  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  as  stated  by  cotemporary  writers,  who,  notwithstand- 
ing, by  a  strange  inconsistency,  submitted  to  its  decrees, 


•  See  his  panegyric  by  Don  Nicholas  Antonio,  from  the  Bibl.  Author^ 
Ilispan. 

t  Lettres  et  Memoirs  de  Frangois  de  Vargas,  de  Pierre  de  Malvenda,  et  de 
quelques  Evecques  d'Espagne  traduits  de  I'Espagnol,  &c.  Many  similar 
passages  to  those  above  cited,  with  several  other  curious  and  interesting 
anecdotes  relating  to  this  council,  may  be  seen  in  this  work. 

A  a 


278 

the  Rev.  gentleman  cannot  be  surprised,  that  Protestants 
should  object  to  its  being  obtruded  on  them  as  of  infallible 
authority  ;  or  rather,  that  with  respect  to  confession,  they 
should  consider  its  decisions  as  erroneous,  founded  neither 
on  Scripture,  ancient  usage,  nor  tradition.     They  humbly 
conceive,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  could  never  have  presided 
at   such   a   meeting,   in  which  the   spirit  of  knowledge, 
meekness,  honesty,  and  peace  had  so  small  a  share.     But 
1  know  it  will  be  said,  that  whatever  may  have  been  the 
characters  of  the  fathers  of  this  council,  its  decrees  being 
sanctioned  and  confirmed  by  the  pope,  and  received  as  ar- 
ticles of  faith  by  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  they  must  be 
considered  as  stamped  with  the  seal  of  infallibility,  and  of 
course  must  challenge  the  belief  and  assent  of  all  the  faith- 
ful.    From  this  infallibility  of  the  Church,  "  which,"  he 
tells  us,  "  has  repeatedly  and  solemnly  declared  this  truth 
in  her  general  councils,  and  emphatically  taught  the  same 
in  every  age,"  the  Rev.  gentleman  "  draws  his  fourth  and 
last  argument  in  favour  of  the  divine  institution  of  confes- 
sion."    Had  he  drawn  from  it  his  only  argument  he  would 
have  saved  himself  much  laborious  investigation,  and  by 
confining  the  controversy  to  a  single  point,  have  obviated 
some  doubts,  which  too  circumstantial  a  discussion  may 
possibly  excite  in  the  minds  of  his  readers.     The  lofty  plea 
of  infallibility,  once  established,  renders  all  further  reason- 
ing on  the  subject  superfluous  ;  and  it  is  to  be  regretted,  I 
say,  that  the  Rev.  gentleman  did  not  confine  himself  to  it, 
as,  in  that  case,  it  might  have  admitted  of  a  more  minute 
discussion,  than  can  be  afforded  to  it  when  making  only 
one  head  of  a  short  reply.     The  reader  must  be  sensible, 
that  this  subject  opens  a  most  extensive  field  of  argument, 
which,  however,  will  be  passed  over  with  all  possible  des- 
patch. 


279 


PART  THIRD 


Neither  this  council  of  Lateran,  nor  of  Trent^  nor  any  other 

earthly  tribunal^   had,  or  has,  a  right   to  impose  such  a 

grievous  yoJce  as  auricular  confession  upon  the  faithful^ 

from  a  plea  to  infallibility,  this  plea  being  altogether  un' 

supported  either  by  Reason  or  Revelation. 

Infallibility  being  the  greM  fundamental  tenet  of  the 
Roman  Catholic  Church,  by  which  all  others  are  sanction- 
ed ;  and  in  virtue  of  which  she  claims  the  belief  of  many 
points  of  faith,  which,  her  own  divines  confess,  would  not 
otherwise  appear  evidently  revealed,  nor  manifest  from 
reason;  one  would  naturally  imagine,  that  it  would  be 
very  clearly  and  explicitly  set  down  in  the  Scriptures,  and 
that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  would  have  delivered  it  in  the 
most  unequivocal  terms.  I  will  produce  all  the  principal 
passages,  which  are  commonly  alleged  in  support  of  this 
infallibility,  make  a  ievj  remarks  on  them,  and  then  leave 
the  candid  reader  to  judge  for  himself. 

The  first  text  is,  "  The  gates  of  hell  shall  not  prevail 
against  the  Church  ;"  (Matt.  xvi.  18.)  therefore  she  must 
be  infallible.  Here  I  must  beg  leave  to  observe,  that  many 
Roman  Catholic  divines,  who  have  an  admirable  facility  in 
discovering  whatever  they  wish  for  in  the  Scriptures,  often 
allege  this  same  text  to  establish  the  primacy  of  St.  Peter. 
But  they  might  as  well  apply  it  to  transubstantiation,  effi- 
cacious grace,  or  any  other  doctrine.  There  is  a  great  ad- 
vantage in  not  being  over  delicate  in  the  choice  of  argu- 
ments, and  it  is  no  difficult  matter  to  impose  upon  those, 
who  value  them  more  for  their  number  than  their  weight. 
This  text,  like  many  others,  has  been  alleged,  and  admit- 
ted by  thousands,  who,  from  a  point  of  conscience,  or  pre- 
judice, never  considered  it.  For  my  own  part,  I  sincerely 
believe  that,  in   whatever  light  it  be  admitted,  it  cannot  go 


280 

to  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Church.  The  obvious  pro- 
mise of  Christ  is  this  only — "  That  no  violence  or  perse- 
cution of  men  or  devils  shall  ever  succeed  in  destroying 
the  Christian  religion,  to  which  he  has  been  pleased  to 
annex  perpetuity, ^^  Now,  what  has  infallibility  to  do  with  all 
this  ?  If  it  be  said  that  errors  w^ould  destroy  the  Church  as 
effectually  as  violence,  and  that,  therefore,  she  must  be  in- 
fallible in  her  decisions  :  I  answer,  this  is  very  true  under 
two  exceptions,  each  of  which  overthrows  every  plea  to 
infallibility.  The  first  is — that  all  errors  do  not  destroy 
the  Church,  but  such  only  as  are  fundamental.  The  se- 
cond— that  without  infallibility,  she  may  always  secure 
herself  from  these  capital  errors,  by  taking  for  her  guide 
the  light  of  clear  Revelation  and  the  evidence  of  Reason. 
With  these  two  luminous  principles  in  view,  the  Church 
cannot  fall  into  many  material  errors — by  abandoning 
either  she  is  reduced  to  a  level  with  every  other  fallible 
society.  The  Church,  therefore,  that  is  to  say,  the  whole 
body  of  the  faithful,  cannot  err  in  matters  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  essence  of  Christianity;  but  the  text  does 
not  prove,  in  the  most  distant  manner,  that  the  Church, 
besides  the  fundamental  articles  of  religion,  should  never 
teach  any  others,  or  enforce  their  belief,  although  they  be 
not  authorized  either  by  Reason  or  Revelation.  And  ac- 
cordingly we  lind,  that  the  great  body  of  orthodox  Chris- 
tians, through  every  age,  have  constantly  believed  and  pro- 
fessed the  fundamental  articles  of  the*  Christian  religion 
contained  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  and  in  the  decisions  of 
the  four  first  councils.  Against  these  great  fundamental 
tenets  the  gates  of  hell  will  never  prevail.  The  enemy 
may  sow  tares  and  stubble  among  this  heavenly  grain  ;  he 
may  build  structures  of  straw  upon  this  unshaken  founda- 
tion. Against  his  wiles  and  encroachments,  the  rulers  of 
God's  Church  should  ever  be  upon  their  guard.  It  is  a 
main  point  of  their  duty  to  clear  away  the  rubbish,  which 
the  artifice  of  Satan,  and   the   various   passions  of  men.j 


281 

liave  been  for  ages  heaping  upon  these  foundations  of 
truth :  but  they  may  rest  secure  that  these  foundations 
themselves,  will  never  give  way  to  any  power  in  hell  or  on 
earth.  They  may  be  obscured  by  the  mists  of  superstition 
and  immorality,  but  will  ever  retain  sufficient  light  to  con- 
duct every  upright  and  pious  believer,  to  all  points  of  his 
duty,  essentially  connected  with  his  eternal  salvation.* 

2.  "Jesus  Christ  promised  his  Apostles,  that  he  would 
be  with  them  to  the  end  of  the  world."  (Matt,  xxviii. 
20.)  And  who  denies  it?  He  is  with  his  Church  by  his 
protection,  by  his  grace,  by  the  lights  he  communicates  to 
her,  by  the  gifts  which  he  confers,  by  the  strength  which 
he  exerts  in  supporting  her  against  violence  and  tempta- 
tions. But  cannot  he  be  with  her  without  rendering  her 
infallible?     He  is  with   every   just   man;  yet  who  would 

*The  following  illustration  of  this  text  by  the  late  learned  Mr.  Grenville 
Sharp,  and  Dr.  Middleton  on  the  Greek  Article,  in  addition  to  what  has  al- 
ready been  said,  will  evince  its  meaning  beyond  a  doubt,  and  put  at  rest 
every  controversy  arising  out  of  it. 

That  the  Romish  hierarchy  has  founded  its  pretensions  to  dominion  chiefly 
on  the  text  mentioned  in  the  title,  is  well  known ;  and  not  less  so,  in  this 
country,  that  those  pretensions,  in  all  their  forms,  have  been  solidly  refuted 
by  Protestant  writers  of  various  kinds.  Mr.  Sharp,  however,  calls  the  at- 
tention of  his  readers  to  a  point  which  has  certainly  been  too  much  over- 
looked, namely,  that  YlSTpoc  Peter,  does  not  mean  a  rock,  as  it  has  been  in- 
cautiously translated,  but  a  stone.f  Christ  is  the  rock  (Uilpu.  )  Peter 
(Uilpcg)  is  only  a  liUle  piece  of  a  rock,  or  a  stone,  that  has  been  dug  out  of 
the  rock.  Thus  is  the  dignity  of  Christ  preserved,  and  Peter  properly  kept 
at  a  due  distance  from  him.  The  passage,  therefore,  truly  means,  "Thou 
art  Peter,  (or  Cephas,  both  meaning  a  stone,)  a  fragment  from  that  sacred 
reckon  which  I  will  build  my  Church."  The  distinction  is  clearly  made  in 
the  original  text,  "  Thou  art  Peiros,  and  upon  this  Petra,  (namely, this  rock, 
which  thou  hast  confessed,)  will  I  build  my  Church." 

Mr.  Sharp  produces  the  biblical  expressions  in  which  our  Saviour  is  men- 
tioned as  a  ROCK  or  a  chief  stone,  and  comments  upon  them  with  sagacity 
and  judgment.  He  remarks,  also,  more  clearly  than  we  can  do  in  this  con- 
tracted space,  the  connexion  between  the  words  of  Peter's  confession  and 
our  Saviour's  immediate  reply  to  it ;  and  in  what  manner  it  actually  ear- 
cludes  the  sense,  which  has  been  forced  upon  it  by  the  Church  of  Rome, 

t  UiTOA  is  a  rock,  njT/>o?  a  stone. 

A  a  3 


282 

thence  infer  his  security  from  every  error,  unless  from 
such  as  might  prove  fatal  to  his  integrity  ? — Besides,  why 
should  the  presence  of  Christ  render  the  Church  infalli- 
ble rather  than  impeccable?  Is  not  vice  as  great  an  enemy 
to  religion  as  error  ?  Would  not  the  Church  be  equally 
undone  by  either  of  these  evils  becoming  universal?  Why 
then  was  it  not  full  as  necessary  to  secure  her  against  the 
one  as  the  other  ?  But  dreadful  experience  evinces  that 
she  has  been  insured  against  neither. 

Perhaps  it  will  be  said  that  individuals  alone  are  guilty, 
but  that  the  Church,  by  the  mouths  of  her  ministers,  de- 
tests the  scandals  she  is  compelled  to  tolerate  :  but  in  this 
respect,  the  same  thing  may  be  said  of  error,  with  equal 
truth  and  propriety.  In  this  case  also,  individuals  only 
are  guilty;  and  one  portion  of  the  Church  oftentimes 
anathematizes  the  other — besides,  as  I  remarked  above, 
every  kind  of  error  is  not  destructive  of  religion,  and  the 
Church  may  err  in  some  points,  without  Jesus  Christ  ceas- 
ing to  be  with  her  ;  for  nothing  that  does  not  attack  the 
essence  of  Christianity,  can  ever  abolish  it.  While,  there- 
fore, the  essentials  of  religion  are  maintained,  errors  in 
collateral  doctrines  will  never  prove  fatal.  It  is  absurd, 
moreover,  to  imagine,  that  the  pretended  infallibility  of 
the  Church  can  secure  her  against  error.  Christ,  in  form- 
ing his  Church,  did  not  alter  the  nature  of  man  or  of  hu- 
man societies.  What  they  were  before  the  establishment 
of  Christianity,  such  they  still  are,  with  this  only  excep- 
tion, that  now  they  possess  the  benefit  of  Revelation,  to 
serve  as  a  rule  for  belief  and  conduct.  In  this  Revela- 
tion, and  no  where  else,  is  infallibility  to  be  found.  If,  in 
some  respects,  the  Church  may  be  styled  infallible,  she  is 
only  so  in  being  the  depository  of  this  code  of  Revelation, 
which  contains  all  truth  without  any  mixture  of  falsehood, 
and  in  which  every  tenet  of  religion,  necessary  for  salva- 
tion, may  be  easily  discovered  by  every  diligent  and  can- 
did inquirer.     Thus  it   is   that  Jesus   Christ  is  with  us  to 


283 

the  end  of  the  world,  without  creating  any  necessity  for  an 
infallible  Church. 

3.  The  next  passage  alleged  by  Roman  Catholic  di- 
vines, is  fiom  the  fourth  chapter  of  St.  Paul  to  the  Ephe- 
sians,  11,  14,  where  he  says,  "Jesus  Christ  has  given  to 
his  Church,  some  to  be  Apostles,  others  to  be  prophets,  to 
the  end  that  we  should  be  no  longer  children  who  suffer 
themselves  to  be  carried  about  by  every  wind  of  doc- 
trine," &;c. 

This  text  makes  as  little  for  infallibility  as  the  other 
two.  The  question  here,  is  not  concerning  any  judgment 
of  the  Church,  but  the  sending  of  pastors  and  ministers  to 
instruct  the  people.  "  For  how  can  they  hear  the  word  of 
God,  unless  it  be  preached  to  them  ;  and  how  can  it  be 
preached  but  by  those  who  are  sent."  (Rom.  x.  14,  15.) 
Apostles,  therefore,  and  prophets  are  necessary  to  bring 
back  the  people  from  error,  to  put  them  in  the  way  of 
truth,  and  secure  them  from  illusion.  But  is  it  any  wise 
necessary  that  these  ministers  should  be  infallible?  This 
is  what  the  Apostle  had  no  idea  of  in  the  text.  They  have 
a  code  of  doctrine  and  morality  to  follow,  which  is  infalli- 
ble, but  they  themselves  have  no  pretence  to  this  privi- 
lege. In  the  same  manner,  the  Church  possesses  the  in- 
fallible Scriptures,  and  by  following  them  can  never  err. 
But  the  question  is.  whether  this  be  always  the  case.  One 
part  of  the  Christian  Church  pretends  that  it  is  so;  the 
other  that  it  is  not :  I  fear  it  will  soon  be  found,  that  those 
who  maintain  the  impossibility  of  the  Cliurch's  receding 
from  the  sense  of  Scripture,  will  meet  with  stubborn  facts 
to  thwart  their  pretensions.  For,  among  Roman  Catholic 
divines  themselves,  who  are  perpetually  accusing  each 
other  of  errors,  and  defending  their  respective  opinions  by 
the  decisions  of  the  Church,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that 
some  should  be  wrong.  Wherefore,  notwithstanding  hei 
infallibility,  the  doctors  of  the  Roman  Church  are  divided 
eternally  upon  objects  of  faith.     Notwithstanding  her  de- 


284 

cisions,  they  deny,  explain,  and  modiry  them  as  they 
please,  or  allege  opposite  decrees  in  support  of  their  seve- 
ral opinions.  If,  therefore,  the  Church's  infallihility,  be 
deduced  from  the  union  of  her  bishops  and  doctors,  she 
has  a  slender  plea,  indeed,  to  that  exalted  privilege.  For 
a  union,  that  is,  such  in  words  and  formulas  only,  (and  it 
is  no  other,)  cannot  be  deemed  a  proper  union,  which  con- 
sists in  ascribing  the  same  identical  meaning  to  the  words 
which  both  parties  adopt. 

4.  With  as  much  propriety  are  many  other  passages  of 
Scripture  alleged.  St.  Paul  writes  to  the  Galatians,  and 
tells  them,  that  "if  any  man  should  announce  to  them 
any  other  doctrine  than  what  he  had  taught  them,  such  a 
person  should  be  an  anathema."  (Gal.  i.  9.)  The  ques- 
tion here  was  concerning  justification  by  faith,  or  by  the 
works  of  the  law ;  and  it  appears  at  first  sight,  that  to 
preach  a  doctrine  contrary  to  that  delivered  by  St.  Paul, 
was  to  re-establish  Judaism  upon  the  ruins  of  the  Gospel. 
Such  was  the  prevarication  w^hich  St.  Paul  condemned,  and 
he  had  reason  for  doing  it.  Is  it  probable  he  would  have 
passed  so  severe  a  censure  upon  less  important  articles  1  or 
did  he  imagine  that  no  doctrine,  contrary  to  his,  could  be 
preached  to  the  Galatians?  If  he  did,  why  caution  them 
against  an  evil  that  was  never  to  happen  ?  The  fact  is, 
the  Apostle  was  really  apprehensive  of  such  a  thing,  and 
the  more  so,  as  St.  Peter  himself,  by  patronizing  the  cere- 
monies of  the  law,  seemed  to  support  a  doctrine,  which  St. 
Paul  so  severely  reprobated — Moreover,  he  was  far  from 
pronouncing  an  anathema  upon  an  opposition  to  less  ma- 
terial points,  as  appears  evidently  from  his  frequent  ex- 
hortations to  the  faithful,  to  bear  with  each  other  in  the 
difference  of  opinion  which  would  arise  among  them.  He 
knew  well  that,  as  men,  they  could  not  be  all  of  a  mind, 
and,  therefore,  recommended  a  charitable  forbearance,  in- 
stead of  a  vague  infallibility.  This  is  an  invention  of  a 
later  date,  and  was  craftily  adopted,  when   reason  was  de- 


285 

ficent.  Infallibility  was  engrafted  upon  the  necessity  of  a 
system  which  enforced  opinions  repugnant  to  common 
sense.  But  this  very  necessity  is  an  argument  of  its  weak- 
ness, if  not  of  its  falsity. 

5.  "Jesus  Christ,"  they  add,  "  commands  us  to  regard 
every  person,  who  will  not  hear  the  Church,  as  a  Heathen 
or  a  Publican."  (Matt,  xviii.  17.)  Therefore  the  Church 
is  infallible.  St.  Paul  commands  us  to  obey  the  powers 
that  are  :  Therefore,  these  powers  are  infallible.  One  of 
these  conclusions  is  as  logical  as  the  other ;  but  the  truth 
is,  the  passage  in  question  bears  not  the  most  distant  rela* 
tion  to  infallibility  of  any  kind.  It  does  not  so  much  as 
hint  at  any  doctrine,  or  decision  in  matter  of  faith.  It 
speaks  only  of  a  reconciliation  between  two  persons,  one 
of  whom  refuses  to  make  the  other  satisfaction,  notwith- 
standing the  interposition  of  the  Church  or  congregation 
to  w^hich  he  belongs.  In  this  case,  he  is  to  be  cut  off 
from  the  communion  of  the  faithful,  as  a  turbulent  person  : 
he  is  not  to  be  allowed  to  come  to  the  public  worship  or  sa- 
crament, and  is  to  be  treated  as  those  are,  who  do  not  be- 
long to  the  Christian  Church.  Let  us  then  respect  the 
voice  of  the  Church,  when  Jesus  Christ  obliges  us  to  hear 
her ;  but  let  as  not  draw  general  conclusions  from  Scrip- 
tural passages,  which  are  true  only  in  particular  cases  ;  let 
us  not  convert  the  principles  of  the  Gospel  into  sources  of 
illusion;  nor  build  infallibility  upon  texts  of  Scripture, 
which  afford  not  the  least  ground  for  such  a  chimera.  Let 
us  not  open  a  door  to  error,  by  being  over-solicitous  to  ex- 
clude it. 

6.  It  is  said,  moreover,  that,  in  proportion  as  heresies 
have  arisen,  the  Church  has  always  adopted  the  language 
of  St.  Paul,  to  convey  her  threats  ;  and  that  the  fathers 
deliver  it  as  a  rule  of  faith  to  believe  that  ichich  has  al- 
ways been  believed.  They  were  convinced,  therefore,  that 
an  infallibility  resided  in  the  Church,  and  that  the  profes- 
sion of  the  true  religion  could  never  fail. 


286 

This  last  assertion  is  very  certain.  The  fathers  never 
believed  that  the  profession  of  the  true  faith  could  be  so 
far  obscured,  as  to  be  totally  abolished.  But  did  they  be- 
lieve, that  the  greatest  part  of  the  Church  could  not  fall 
into  capital  errors,  or  that  the  true  faith  could  not  subsist 
together  with  some  errors  ?  This  is  what  can  never  be 
evinced  from  their  writings  ;  and  yet,  for  the  above  objec- 
tion to  be  of  any  force,  we  must  first  allow,  that  the  primi- 
tive fathers  had  the  same  notions  as  modern  divines;  and 
believed,  as  they  do,  that  the  profession  of  the  true  faith  is 
incompatible  with  errors  no  wise  essential ;  but  of  this  they 
had  never  any  idea.  When  they  spoke  of  errors,  they  only 
meant  such  as  sapped  the  foundations  of  religion  ;  on  other 
points  they  allowed  themselves  great  latitude  of  opinion. 
I  appeal  to  those  who  are  well  versed  in  their  writings,  and 
in  the  ancient  councils,  for  the  truth  of  this  assertion  :  I 
ask  them,  moreover,  whether  they  have  ever  discovered  in 
either,  that  every  error  is  damnable,  and  deserving  of  an 
anathema?  Should  this  be  said,  nothing  would  be  more 
easy  than  to  refute  such  a  position,  by  demonstrating  that 
many  of  tlie  most  holy  and  orthodox  prelates  and  doctors 
were  not  exempt  from  error ;  while  they  remained  worthy 
members  of  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  not  true,  then,  that 
all  errors  were  thought  deserving  anathema  in  the  ancient 
Church;  and  it  is  equally  false,  that  this  ecclesiastical 
commination  is  a  proof  of  infallibility,  unless  we  suppose 
that  no  anathema  was  ever  pronounced,  but  by  an  infallible 
tribunal.  Now,  innumerable  doctrines  anathematized  by 
particular  councils  and  bishops,  who  can  have  no  claim  to 
infallibility,  are  so  many  unanswerable  arguments  against 
this  supposition.  From  anathemas,  therefore,  no  conclu- 
sion can  be  formed  in  favour  of  infallibility  :  especially  as 
the  Church  has  often  pronounced  them,  in  cases  where  in- 
fallibility was  no  wise  concerned,  and  her  sole  object  was 
to  maintain  good  order  and  discipline.  I  say,  moreover, 
that  from  this  position,  viz :  "  To  deliver  for  truth,  that 


2S7 

which  has  always  been  believed,"  is  no  argument  of  the 
Church's  infallibility,  but  merely  points  out,  in  case  of 
doubt  or  dispute,  the  most  obvious  means  of  coming  at  the 
truth  ;  for  it  may  well  be  presumed,  that  what  was  believed 
originally  and  generally^  ought  to  form  the  creed  of  the 
piesent  generation.  This  may  be  styled  a  moral  rule  of 
conduct  in  the  ordinary  course  of  life,  but  is  not,  neverthe- 
less, without  its  exceptions.  Besides,  if  universal  belief 
should  establish  a  species  of  infallibility,  it  would  not  be 
the  effect  of  an  unerring  judgment  in  the  Church,  but  of 
the  moral  impossibility,  that  an  article  of  religion,  which 
had  always  been  believed  and  professed,  without  any  alte- 
ration, should  prove  false  in  the  end.  But  this  cannot  be 
deemed  any  special  privilege  ;  it  would  argue  great  folly, 
not  to  say  infidelity,  to  doubt  of  any  human  fact,  were  it 
attested  in  this  manner  :  not  because  any  infallibility  was 
requisite  to  transmit  it  to  posterity,  but  because,  with  re- 
spect to  facts  delivered  down  to  us,  we  have  no  rule  to  go 
by,  so  certain  as  this  uniform  agreement  of  testimony. 

Let  divines,  therefore,  cease  preconizing  an  infallibility 
of  judgment,  which  never  subsisted  out  of  their  own  ima- 
ginations. It  is  the  privilege  of  the  Christian  Church,  as 
it  was  that  of  the  Jewish,  to  preserve  the  essential  founda- 
tions of  religion,  and  the  sacred  deposite  whence  the  know- 
ledge of  them  is  derived.  By  the  guidance  of  this  depo- 
site, and  the  special  protection  of  God,  she  never  can  pe- 
rish. But  neither  her  perpetuity  nor  indefectibility  can 
secure  her  from  common  mistakes,  or  raise  her  above  the 
level  of  common  humanity.  As  long  as  she  is  made  up  of 
fallible  men,  so  long  will  the  weaknesses,  errors,  and  su- 
perstitions of  mankind  insinuate  themselves  into  her  most 
sacred  tenets,  and  purest  morality.  But  in  this  case  she 
has  the  same  resource  as  the  Jewish  synagogue  had  ;  she 
must  refer  the  matter  to  the  law  and  to  the  testimony.  (Isa. 
viii.  20.)  Here  only  is  infallibility  to  be  found.  As  lono 
as  the  Church  follows  this  rule  she  shall  never  err.     But 


288 

nothing  insures  her  against  mistake  the  moment  she  for- 
sakes  it,  and  takes  upon  her  to  decide  upon  mere  probabi- 
lities, without  the  warrant  either  of  evidence  or  revelation. 
For  when  she  decides  upon  matters  that  are  merely  proba- 
ble, whence  can  she  derive  her  infallibility  ?  It  cannot  be 
from  inspiration,  which,  as  all  agree,  she  does  not  possess; 
nor  from  any  fresh  revelation  or  evidence,  for  then  it 
would  follow,  that  the  doctrine  delivered  by  Christ  and  his 
Apostles  was  not  complete.  What,  therefore,  can  be  the 
principle  of  this  infallibility  ?  Is  it  the  present  belief? 
But  we  have  seen,  that  this  is  merely  a  moral  rule  of  con- 
duct, and  carries  with  it  no  greater  proof  of  infallibility  in 
the  Church,  than  the  general  belief  of  the  existence  of 
Julius  Cgesar,  confers  infallibility  upon  the  relations  of  his- 
tory. Thus,  neither  reason  nor  authority  furnishes  a  sin- 
gle argument  in  favour  of  this  pretended  infallibility.  The 
most  plausible  supports  of  this  system  must  therefore  be 
drawn  from  the  practice  of  the  Church,  which  we  will  now 
proceed  to  consider. 

It  is  said,  that  as  often  as  any  contest  has  arisen  in  the 
Church,  and  has  been  determined  by  her  decision.  Catho- 
lics have  always  thought  themselves  obliged  to  submit. 
Those  who  refused  to  do  so,  were  regarded  as  heretics, 
were  cut  off  from  the  body  of  the  faithful,  and  were  thought 
to  belong  no  more  to  the  Christian  society.  Now,  to  have 
a  right  to  excommunicate  those  who  will  not  submit,  the 
Church  must  be  secured  from  error  in  those  doctrines, 
to  which  she  claims  our  assent.  Therefore,  the  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  in  exacting  submission  to  her  de- 
crees, is  a  proof  of  her  infallibility  ;  because,  without 
this,  such  a  claim,  under  such  heavy  threats,  would  be  an 
act  of  sacrilegious  usurpation  and  tyranny.  This  argu- 
ment is  very  plausible  at  first  sight,  but  is,  in  reality,  no- 
thing more  than  a  begging  of  the  question.  For,  it  is  only 
in  the  supposition  that  this  infallibility  does  exist,  that  the 
practice  of  the  Chuich  can  be  alleged  to  evince  it.     Were 


239 

not  this  the  case,  what  would  they  conclude,  who  question 
this  infallibility?  They  would  say,  no  doubt,  that  the 
Church  not  being  infallible,  as  is  pretended,  her  practice 
on  this  head,  is  rather  an  abuse  that  ought  to  be  reformed, 
than  a  law  of  obligation  ;  that  nothing  is  more  dangerous, 
and  often  less  logical,  than  to  argue  from  matter  of  fact  to 
matter  of  right,  because  the  latter  must  first  be  established 
before  the  former  can  possibly  be  an  argument  for  its  jus- 
tice. Thus,  when  several  popes  presumed  to  enforce  acts 
of  jurisdiction  in  matters  merely  temporal,  to  the  prejudice 
of  princes,  they  were  withstood  as  so  many  usurpations, 
and  abolished  as  tyrannical,  and  no  wise  competent  to  pre- 
scribe against  right.  It  is  great  weakness,  therefore,  to 
urge  this  practice  as  a  proof  of  infallibility,  since  nothing 
decisive  can  follow  from  it,  till  it  be  demonstrated  to  be  a 
just  and  equitable  practice,  which  I  am  very  certain  will 
never  be  done.  But  even  supposing  it  to  be  just  and  allow- 
able, it  furnishes  no  demonstration  of  infallibility,  nor 
would  this  follow  from  it  as  a  necessary  consequence :  ex- 
communication has  been  often  employed  upon  very  trifling 
occasions,  where  articles  of  faith  were  no  wise  concerned, 
and  where  both  parties  seemed  equally  in  the  right.  Such 
was  the  case  with  respect  to  the  celebration  of  Easter,  the 
repetition  of  baptism,  the  marriage  of  the  clergy,  the  afl^air 
of  the  three  chapters,  &c.  where  the  excommunicating 
party  could  not  surely  challenge  the  privilege  of  being  in- 
fallible. This  act  of  Church  authority,  therefore,  is  not 
grounded  upon  infallibility,  but  solely  upon  the  right, 
which  every  community  possesses,  of  framing  laws  and  re- 
gulations for  its  own  well  being,  and  excluding  every  per- 
son from  its  society,  who  refuses  to  submit  to  the  rules, 
without  which  such  a  community  cannot  subsist.  Parti- 
cular Churches  have  frequently  excommunicated  each 
other,  without  the  least  pretence  to  infallibility.  The 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches  fulminated  against  each 
other  for  ages,  although  the  contest  was  chiefly  for  pre- 

B    b 


290 

eminence  and  power.     St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  complains 
of  their  ambition  in  his  time. 

Non  causa  pietas,  (bilis  hoc  exagitat  ad  mentiendum 
prona,)  sed  lis  ob  thronos,  (car,  de  sua  vita.)  Nothing, 
therefore,  can  be  less  satisfactory  than  the  argument  drawn 
from  the  practice  of  excommunication,  a  penalty  often  in- 
flicted without  necessity  and  justice,  frequently  at  the  ex- 
pense of  reason  and  truth,  consequently  but  ill  calculated 
to  demonstrate  the  existence  of  the  highest  privilege  ever 
claimed  by  mankind. 

But  it  will  be  said,  that,  at  least,  it  was  never  deemed 
lawful  to  counteract  the  decisions  of  the  Church  ;  and  that 
after  the  definitive  sentence  was  passed,  no  man  was  at  li- 
berty to  contest  the  point  any  longer,  but  was  obliged  to 
submit.  Now,  this  obligation  could  only  arise  from  the 
idea  of  the  Church's  infallibility,  and  of  no  appeal  from  her 
judgments  being  legal.  There  might  be  some  weight  in 
this  argument,  were  it  not  the  nature  of  every  sovereign 
tribunal  to  admit  of  no  appeal  from  its  sentence,  although 
not  resting  upon  any  infallible  authority. 

In  every  well  regulated  society  some  supreme  court  of 
judicature  must  necessarily  be  established,  in  order  to  ter- 
minate finally  those  contentions  among  individuals  which, 
if  perpetuated,  would  for  ever  disturb  the  peace  of  the  com- 
munity. But  are  such  tribunals,  on  this  account,  to  be 
deemed  infallible  ?  It  is  true,  that  the  decisions  concern- 
ing truth,  do  not  bear  a  strict  resemblance  to  those  that  re- 
gard our  temporal  interests.  The  first  must  never  deviate 
an  iota  from  the  apparent  light  of  reason  or  revelation — the 
second  may  be  modified  or  relaxed  as  the  public  good  re- 
quires. But  in  both  cases  the  manner  of  judging  is  the 
same,  and  in  both  cases  the  decisions  of  men  may  be 
equally  mistaken  ;  and  accordingly  we  often  see,  when  one 
supreme  tribunal  has  been  compelled  to  yield  to  an  ad- 
verse power,  its  decrees  have  been  reversed,  and  others 
euxicted,  which,  during  the  prevalence  of  their  authors,  are 


291 

as  binding  as  the  first.     This  was  the  case  during  the  fa- 
mous disputes  concerning  the  incarnation.     For  two  hun- 
dred years  the  same  opinions  were  alternately  approved  and 
condemned,  as  their  abettors  or  adversaries  got  the  upper 
hand.     It  was,  therefore,   thought  necessary   to  recur  to 
some  supreme  authority,  in  order  to  prevent  disputes  be- 
coming perpetual.    The  spirit  of  charity,  which  is  the  very 
essence  of  religion,  was  greatly  impaired  by  these  dreadful 
quarrels;  and  it  was  judged  a  less  dangerous  expedient  to 
decide  definitively  upon  these  several  questions,  than  to 
suffer  Christians  to  tear  each  other  to  pieces,  in  support  of 
their  respective  opinions.     But  this  could  not  deprive  indi- 
viduals of  the  right  of  judging  for  themselves  in  speculative 
matters.     In  these  cases,  reason  cannot  yield  to  human  au- 
thority alone,  especially  when  it  is  known,  that  many  final 
decisions  have  been  discovered  at  last,  disagreeing  with 
truth.     This  made  St.  Gregory  Nazianzen  declare,  "  that 
he  was  never  present  at  an  assembly  of  bishops,  which  did 
not  increase  the  evils  they  were  meant  to  remedy ;  the  spi- 
rit of  dispute  and  ambition  always  prevailing  over  the  dic- 
tates of  reason."     And  the  judicious  Turretin  adds,  "  that 
if  any  man,  having  read  the  acts  of  the  councils,  should  re- 
gard them  as  infallible,  a  physician  would  be  the  proper 
person  to  undertake  his  case;"  "  Qui  lectis^conciliorum  actis, 
ea  pro  errare  nesciis  habuerit,  ad  medicos  abligandus  est." 
But,  perhaps,  it  will  be  said,  that  we  are  not  to  depend 
so  securely  upon  the  decisions  of  councils,  as  upon  the 
subsequent  consent  of  the  Church.     She   being  the   de- 
pository of  tradition,  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith,  and, 
therefore,  when   she   admits  of  the  decrees  of  councils, 
stamps  the  seal  of  infallibility  upon  them.     If  this  be  the 
case,  then  are  these  decrees  no  longer  infallible  in  them- 
selves :  the  universal  testimony  of  the  Church  claiming 
alone  this  exalted  privilege.     And  this  is  what  Roman  Ca- 
tholic divines  have  been  compelled  to  maintain,  when  they 
perceived  the  absurdity  of  defending  the  infallibility  of 


292 

councils.     But  even  in  this  supposition,  it  is  evident,  T. 
That  an  actual  testimony,  although  it  be  universal  respect- 
ing articles  of  faith,  as  well  as  other  matters  of  fact,  is  in- 
sufficient, unless  these  facts  be  delivered  down  by  tradition 
as  perpetual  as  it  is  universal.     For  the  universal  belief  of 
any  fact  is  no  argument  for  its  existence,  unless  it  be  re- 
lated by  respectable  cotemporary  authors,  who  vouch  for 
its  origin,  an<l  be  transmitted  down  to  us  by  an  uninterrupt- 
ed succession  of  credible  witnesses.     2.  This  privilege  is 
not  peculiar  to  the  Church  ;  for  in  matters  of  religion,  as 
in   all  others,  a  perpetual,  uniform,  and  general  consent 
must  challenge  our  belief.     3.  If  this  pretended  universal 
testimony  be  confined  to  any  particular  society,  then  does 
it  become  only  a  partial  testimony,  and  its  weight  is  di- 
minished, in  proportion  as  it  becoms  less  uniform  and  ge- 
neral.    To  what,  then,  is  this  boasted  uniformity  reduced? 
To  a  certain  society  of  Christians ;  which,  although,  per- 
haps, more  numerous  than  any  other  particular  sect,  is  cer- 
tainly less  so  than  all  the  others  collectively.     This  society 
of  Christians  claims  for  it  alone  the  privilege  of  infallibility, 
and  sets  at  nought  the  testimony  of  all  other  Churches ' 
but,  I  apprehend,  they  ground  their  pretensions  upon  no 
better  reasons  than  the  Laplanders  do  the  preference  they 
give  to  the  Christian  religion.     These  being  asked  why 
they  believed  it  to  be  best,  answered,  that  it  must  necessa- 
rily be  so,  as  the  Norwegians,  Muscovites,  and  Swedes  had 
embraced    it.     (La  Moutraye    Voyages,  tom»   iii.  c.  16.) 
Many  divines  argue  in  the  same  conclusive  manner.   They 
support  their  opinions  by  the  testimony  of  those  only  who 
make  it  a  point  of  conscience  to  think  as  they  do,  and,  as 
Turretin   observes,  setting  themselves  up   for  judges   in 
their  own  cause,  pronounce  themselves  infallible.     Quid' 
quid  de  ecclesice  infallibilitate  et  jurihus  docent  'pontificii, 
hue  tandem  redit,  eos  judices  in  propria  causa  sedere  velle. 
I  do  not  mean,  however,  to  deny,  that  a  universal  consent, 
carries  with  it  great  weight,  and  that  every  wise  man  ought 


293 

to  acquiesce  in  it,  when  he  cannot  otherwise  arrive  at  the 
intrinsic  evidence  of  the  fact.  But  it  is  not  any  infallibility 
annexed  to  this  testimony,  that  challenges  this  assent.  He 
believes,  because,  in  this  case,  neither  reason  nor  prudence 
will  suffer  him  to  do  otherwise.  But  how  very  rare  is  such 
a  universal  agreement?  and  how  much  more  rare  to  find  it 
attested  through  a  long  series  of  ages,  especially,  when 
neither  subscriptions  nor  formulas  were  in  fashion  to  force, 
if  not  an  inward  belief,  yet  an  outward  profession,  from 
those  who  were  too  weak  to  oppose  an  overbearing  majority, 
or  too  indifferent  about  the  truths  of  religion,  to  exert 
themselves  in  her  behalf'.'  1  say,  outward  professions  have 
frequently  been  forced,  and  these,  it  is  evident,  are  of  no 
kind  of  authority,  cum  et  ipsuin  nomen  sententice  pereaff 
quando  non  illnd  diciUir,  quod  sentiiur,  as  Facundus  ob- 
serves, (lib,  12.)  Now,  to  allege  such  a  consent  for  the 
truth  of  an  opinion,  is  full  as  absurd  as  to  argue  from  the 
general  submission  of  a  nation  to  a  tyrannical  prince,  in 
favour  of  his  usurpation,  which  they  cannot,  or  dare  not, 
resist.  And,  indeed,  may  we  not  fairly  conclude,  that  the 
assent  of  at  least  three  parts  out  of  four,  among  the  Roman 
Catholics,  does  not  proceed  from  conviction  and  knowledge 
of  the  cause  ;  and  that,  in  the  rest,  it  is  more  the  effect  of 
education,  of  fear,  of  interest,  or  of  a  conscience  easily 
alarmed  at  the  idea  of  disobedience,  which  is  perpetually 
inculcated  as  an  enormous  crime,  than  the  result  of  mature 
deliberation  and  reason  ?  Such  an  agreement,  therefore,  as 
this,  can  never  be  alleged  as  an  argument  for  truth,  with- 
out destroying  every  possibility  of  distinguishing  between 
a  false  and  true  religion  ;  since,  by  a  forced  submission,  an 
involuntary  obedience  may  pass  for  conviction  ;  and  since 
every  sovereign  power  might  compel  its  subjects  to  such 
an  assent,  whether  the  object  of  it  be  true  or  false. 

Such  is  the  obvious  consequence  of  a  submission  that  is 
exacted  under  the  heaviest  anathemas  and  punishments. 
Let  every  man  determine  what  consent  must  be,  when  ex- 

Bb2 


294 

torted  by  such  methods :  Nee  aliquid  prsestatur  causse,  de 
qua  sic  fuerit  jndicatum,  et  contradicentibus  multum  ex  hoc 
jirmitatis  accedit.  Convincitur  enim  non  recte  quisqueju- 
dicasse,  quod,  compellente  alio,  judicavit.  [Fac,  16.)  And 
yet  it  is  often  upon  such  a  submission  only,  such  a  con- 
sent, that  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  is  defended.  But 
neither  the  one  nor  the  other  can  have  any  weight,  unless 
they  be  perfectly  free  and  rational :  much  less,  if  they 
rest  entirely  upon  an  authority  which  requires  a  blind  ac- 
quiescence, and  makes  it  criminal  to  listen  to  any  diffi- 
culty that  may  occur  against  its  decrees.  For  it  is  ex» 
tremely  absurd  to  bring  any  uniformity  of  consent,  to 
prove  the  truth  of  a  doctrine,  unless  this  consent  be  ground- 
ed upon  conviction  :  nay,  I  should  rather  conclude,  that 
submission  extorted  by  force  and  apprehension,  so  far 
from  establishing  the  truth  of  any  system,  is  an  argument 
of  its  falsity :  that  an  agreement  in  opinion,  without  a 
competent  knowledge  of  the  matter,  is  no  agreement  at 
all ;  or  nothing  more  than  dissimulation  and  deceit,  unless 
springing  from  conviction.  In  a  word,  that  a  forced  con- 
sent, being  neither  general  nor  perpetual,  can  determine 
no  man  to  embrace  an  opinion,  unless  he  have  other  power- 
ful motives  for  doing  it. 

I  have  hitherto  alleged  all  the  common  arguments  for 
infallibility,  and  I  think,  whoever  will  consider  them  at- 
tentively, will  discover  them  to  be  but  slender  props  to  so 
weighty  a  privilege.  I  will  allow,  notwithstanding,  that 
such  a  system  would  be  convenient,  that  it  would  be  ad- 
mirably calculated  for  ascertaining  the  truth,  and  quieting 
the  anxiety  of  uneasy  consciences,  provided  it  had  pleased 
the  Almighty  to  establish  it;  or  if  experience  did  not 
show  he  has  not  done  so.  But  the  convenience  of  a  sys- 
tem is  a  poor  plea  for  its  reality  ;  and  if  this  argument 
were  sufficient  to  require  our  belief  of  it,  new  ones,  for 
the  same  reason,  would  be  daily  invented,  and  intruded 
upon  the   public,  as    more  convenient   than  the  former. 


295 

How  wide  a  field  would  then  be  opened  to  the  wild  fancies 
of  system-makers  !  What  deviation  from  the  simple  me- 
thods, which  the  Almighty  has  adopted  to  establish  his  re- 
ligion  I  Had  He  been  pleased,  in  His  wisdom,  to  remove 
every  difficulty  in  matters  of  faith,  and  to  propose  them 
with  such  evidence,  that  the  most  ignorant  Christian  could 
not  possibly  have  been  mistaken.  He  certainly  could  have 
done  so.  This  system  would  have  been  at  least  as  con- 
venient as  that  of  an  infallible  tribunal:  nay,  had  Al- 
mighty God  regarded  the  convenience  only,  He  would  have 
preferred  the  first;  for  evidence  would  undoubtedly  have 
made  any  inquiry  quite  useless ;  whereas,  the  difficulties 
attending  examination,  place  the  belief  of  infallibility  as 
much  above  the  capacity  of  the  simple  and  ignorant,  as  is 
the  inquiry  into  any  other  point  of  doctrine.  But  God,  in 
creating  us  to  know  and  to  love  Him,  has  left  to  our  un- 
derstanding its  privilege  of  investigating  truth,  and  to  our 
hearts  their  freedom  in  the  choice  of  moral  good.  To  this 
end,  it  was  necessary,  that  man  should  not  be  influenced, 
beyond  resistance,  by  the  charms  of  virtue,  or  the  evi- 
dence of  opinions.  In  such  a  supposition,  he  could  reap 
no  merit  from  practising  virtue,  or  adhering  to  truths — 
What  I  say  of  irresistible  evidence,  may  be  equally  applied 
to  infallibility.  Had  man  been  allowed  to  choose  for  him- 
self, one  of  these  preservatives  against  error,  had  certainly 
been  adopted.  But  the  ways  of  men  are  not  the  ways  of 
God ;  and  it  would  be  high  presumption,  to  expect  that 
His  wisdom  should  ply  to  our  apparent  convenience.  Now, 
it  is  clear,  from  our  innumerable  disputes,  that  the  Al- 
mighty has  not  adopted  this  line  of  evidence,  and  it  is 
equally  clear,  from  the  uncertainty  of  our  decisions,  that 
He  has  not  established  any  infallible  tiibunal.  Such  a  pri- 
vilege, therefore,  is  entirely  chimerical  ;  it  has  no  foun- 
dation in  Scripture,  and  the  history  of  the  Church  gives 
constant  evidence  against  it.  Forced  and  unnatural  in- 
terpretations of  a  few  Scriptural   passages,  first   gave   it 


296 

birth  \  and  illogical  inferences,  instead  of  solid  argument, 
have  been  employed  to  establish  it.  But  they  only  are  im- 
posed upon,  whom  a  painful  discussion  would  cost  too 
much;  who  deem  it  better  to  indulge  in  an  indolent  ac- 
quiescence in  the  determination  of  superiors,  even  at  the 
hazard  of  being  deceived,  than  to  enter  upon  inquiries  that 
might  disturb  ancient  notions,  and  so  bring  on  a  painful 
struggle  between  prejudice  and  reason.  Thus,  a  love  of 
ease  on  the  one  hand,  and  ambition  on  the  other,  joined 
frequently  with  an  indifference  about  religion,  the  con- 
venience of  system,  and  an  appearance  of  humility,  have 
sanctified  an  opinion,  which  reason  rejects,  and  from  which 
the  Church  that  pretends  to  it,  reaps  but  trifling  advan- 
tages. For,  in  reality,  when  have  we  discovered,  that  this 
notion  of  infallibility,  ever  silenced  any  disputes  between 
religious  opponents  ?  Let  us  look  back  upon  the  first 
ages  of  the  Church,  and  see  if  her  decisions,  as  soon  as 
pronounced,  were  sufficient  to  awe  jarring  disputants  to 
submission  :  yet  this  would  have  been  the  case,  had  any 
idea  of  infallibility  prevailed.  How  many  centuries  passed 
away  before  men  grew  cool,  and  heresies  were  extinguish- 
ed, even  after  the  most  solemn  declarations  of  the  Church  ! 
Whoever  reads  the  history  of  the  Arians,  the  Nestorians, 
the  Eutychians,  the  Monotholites,  to  say  nothing  of  here- 
tics of  less  notoriety,  will  soon  perceive  that  infallibility 
had  little  to  do  in  settling  these  disputes.  The  faithful 
throughout  the  world,  were  induced  to  submit,  by  con- 
vincing themselves  gradually  of  the  solidity  of  the  argu- 
ments, upon  which  the  Church's  decisions  were  grounded. 
When  I  say  the  faithful,  I  mean  such  as  have  some  notion 
of  what  they  believe.  For,  as  to  those  who  limit  them- 
selves to  words  only,  (and  this  is  the  case  with  the  gene- 
rality of  men,)  1  am  of  opinion  that  their  belief  rests  solely 
upon  authority.  But  this  proceeds  not  from  any  persua- 
sion of  such  authority  being  infallible  :  for,  in  other  Chris- 
tian Churches,  where  infallibility  was  never  heard  of,  the 


297 

people  submit  with  the  same  docility,  and  pay  equal  de- 
ference to  the  voice  of  their  pastors.  In  this  respect,  the 
unlettered  multitude  is  every  where  the  same.  The  ig- 
norant man,  who  would  be  a  sincere  Roman  Catholic  at 
Rome,  would  be  fully  as  sincere  a  Protestant  in  England  ; 
or  perhaps  an  honest  mussulman  at  Constantinople;  acting 
in  all  places  upon  the  same  principle,  viz.  a  blind  obedi- 
ence to  his  teachers,  whether  they  lead  him  into  truth  or 
error.  Such  are  the  obvious  consequences  of  a  faith,  the 
merit  and  excellence  of  which,  consists  in  believing  with- 
out ideas.  A  person  who  knows  no  other  religion,  than 
that  which  his  superiors  have  taught  him,  and  who  is  ac- 
quainted with  no  teachers,  but  such  as  chance  has  thrown 
in  his  way,  believes  every  thing,  and  believes  nothing  ;  for, 
not  having  any  idea  of  what  he  believes,  all  his  religion 
consists  in  words  and  formulas,  let  him  belong  to  what 
communion  he  may.  To  such,  therefore,  as  these,  infalli- 
bility can  be  of  little  service  ;  since  their  belief  rests 
solely  upon  the  word  of  their  pastors.  And  as  to  those 
who  are  more  enlightened,  this  pretension  would  be  equally 
unavailing,  as  nothing  but  solid  reasons  can  command  their 
assent.  Convinced  that  no  human  authority  can  dispense 
with  a  rational  inquiry,  they  can  find  no  peace  of  con- 
science, no  tranquillity  of  mind,  but  in  the  conviction  of 
having  done  their  best  to  discover  the  truth,  and  the  ways 
of  salvation,  by  calling  in  to  the  assistance  of  reason,  the 
light  of  revelation,  by  which  alone  they  hope  to  be  in- 
fallibly secured  against  error. — Wherefore,  the  dangerous 
consequences  of  a  free  inquiry,  must  appear  greatly  ex- 
aggerated to  every  unprejudiced  mind.  Tone  purpose  are 
we  told  by  Roman  Catholic  divines,  that,  without  this  in- 
fallibility, there  can  be  no  uniformity  in  belief,  and  that 
each  individual  will  have  a  religion  of  his  own  :  for,  al- 
lowing this  to  be  true  to  a  certain  latitude,  where  can  be 
the  crime  of  judging  for  ourselves  in  a  matter  where  each 
one  is  personally  concerned  ?     Besides,  has  this  pretended 


298 

infallibility  ever  produced  a  uniformity  of  sentiment  in 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  ?  Are  not  warm  disputes  and 
uncharitable  wranglings,  perpetually  echoing  in  their 
schools,  upon  very  important  questions  concerning  grace, 
the  infallibility  of  the  pope>  the  supremacy  of  councils,  the 
intention  requisite  for  administering  the  sacraments,  and  a 
variety  of  other  weighty  and  doctrinal  points  ?  Do  not 
Molinists  and  Thomists,  and  other  bodies  of  theologians, 
mutually  accuse  each  other  of  material  heresy  ?  And  do 
they  not  preserve  an  appearance  of  Catholicity,  merely  by 
subscribing  the  same  formulas  of  words,  yet  reserving  to 
themselves  the  liberty  of  interpreting  them  as  they  please  ? 
So  that  we  may  say  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  what 
the  sage  La  Bruyere  pronounced  of  a  nation  in  general : 
"  It  professes  the  same  worship,  and  has  but  one  religion  ; 
but  the  truth  is,  it  has  really  many ;  nay,  almost  every  in- 
dividual has  one  of  his  own."  (Charac.  des  Esprits forts.) 
Now,  can  it  be  suppose^l  that  such  a  uniformity  as  this,  is 
either  necessary,  or  sufficient  for  salvation?  If  so — then 
religion  consists  in  nothing  but  words.  If  not — then  of 
what  service  is  infallibility,  which  is  productive  only  of 
such  a  uniformity  as  those  who  support  this  system  deem 
insufficient?  the  Gospel,  it  is  true,  inculcates  nothing  so 
frequently  as  charity  and  union,  because  nothing  is  so  es- 
sential to  the  interests  of  religion.  But  it  is  rather  a  union 
of  hearts,  than  a  union  of  opinions  ;  and  St.  Paul,  exhort- 
ing the  Philippians  to  adopt  the  sentiments  with  which  he 
had  endeavoured  to  inspire  them,  advises  them  to  make  a 
point  of  being  united  in  those  things  with  which  they  were 
acquainted  :  leaving  them  at  liberty  upon  other  matters, 
till  God  should  be  pleased  to  favour  them  with  new  lights. 
(Philip,  iii.  1-5.)  This  is  a  genuine  Gospel  regulation — 
this  only  comes  within  the  line  of  our  duty,  because  it  is 
agreeable  to  the  rules  of  reason  and  justice.  If  we  adopt 
this  injunction,  infallibility  becomes  useless;  and  uniform- 
ity of  belief  is  a  duty  in  those  matters  only,  to  the   Jcnoiv- 


299 

ledge  of  which  we  have  already  attained.     As  to  the  other 
articles,  it  is  not  by  any  means  more  criminal   to  oppose 
them^  than  such  as   are    totally  foreign  to  religion.     Upon 
these  we  may  think  with  others,  or  dissent  from  them, 
without  either  merit  or  reproach,  unless  other  motives  than 
a  love  of  truth  should  influence  our  opinions.     In  this  case, 
we  should  indeed    be  criminal :    not    because  we  do  not 
adopt  the   creed  of  other   people,  but  because   we  suffer 
ourselves  to  be  actuated  by  the  views  of  interest,  fear,  or 
other  motives  too  base  to  regulate  the   opinions  of  an  ho- 
nest man.     It  would  have  been,  doubtless,  a  happiness  to 
mankind  to  be  placed  beyond  the  possibility  of  deception. 
But  the  Almighty,  for  wise  and  merciful  reasons,  has  order- 
ed it  otherwise.     It  is  not  for  us  to  fathom  the  depths  of 
His  providence,  but  to  rest  contented  with  the  knowledge 
He  has  been  pleased   to  communicate,  and  not  arrogate  to 
ourselves  an  infallibility,  which  belongs  properly   to  Him 
alone,  and  of  which  he   does  not  choose  to   make  any  hu- 
man society  a  partaker.     It  is  our  duty  to  pay  a  proper  re- 
spect to  the  decisions  of  the   Christian  Church,  to  revere 
her  tribunal,  and  never  to  reason  upon  her  ordinances  but 
with  decency   and  candour.     But  this  does  not  deprive  us 
of  our  right  to  discuss    the  justice  and  truth  of  her  de- 
crees.    And  in  this  discussion,  we  must  observe  the  same 
rules  that  serve  to  guide  us  in  other  inquiries.     Specula- 
tive truths  must  rest  entirely  upon  evidence  or  probability  ; 
and  matters  of  fact   upon  the  witnesses  that  support  them. 
In  a  word,  all  speculative   religion  consists  in  knowing,  if 
what  is  proposed  to  be  believed,  be  certain  from  reason,  or 
evident  from  revelation  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  certainty 
of  an  opinion  must  be  demonstrated  by  argument :  and  the 
revelation   of  it  must  be  demonstrated   by  facts.     Now,  I 
say,  we  may  be  fully    convinced   of  the  truth  of  either, 
without  having  recourse  to  any   infallible  authority  upon 
earth.     This  system,  therefore,  was  invented  without  ne- 
cessity, is  supported   without  proofs,  rests  upon  manifest 


300 

suppositions,  and  appears  calculated  solely  to  secure  the 
dependence  of  the  people,  and  blind  submission  to  the 
rulers  of  the  Church.  Neither  does  it  follow,  that  by  re- 
jecting the  idea  of  a  supernatural  infallibility,  every  doc- 
trinal point  must  become  dubious  and  unsettled.  In  other 
branches  of  knowledge,  many  truths  are  admitted  as  cer- 
tain, without  the  interference  of  any  living,  infallible  au- 
thority. And,  indeed,  of  what  service  would  reason  be  to 
us,  that  precious  gift  of  heaven,  if  it  were  meant  only  to 
lead  us  astray  under  the  guidance  of  a  living  instructor, 
who  has  no  means  of  arriving  at  the  truth,  but  such  as  we 
ourselves  may  employ  ?  Were  the  Church  gifted  with  the 
light  of  divine  inspiration,  it  would  then  be  evident  where 
her  infallibility  could  be  found.  But  to  this  she  does  not 
pretend  :  and  builds  her  decisions  upon  testimony  alone. 
She  can,  therefore,  claim  no  infallibility,  but  such  as  is 
agreeable  to  the  nature  of  testimony:  viz.  a  moral  pre- 
sumption only  resulting  from  it,  when  at  any  time  it  is  uni- 
versal and  uncontradicted.  This  presumption,  moreover, 
being  nothing  more  than  what  may  belong  to  other  mat- 
ters of  fact,  is  not  a  special  privilege  of  the  Church.  It 
claims  our  assent  more  from  motives  of  reason  than  reli- 
gion, because  it  would  be  as  absurd  to  withhold  it  in  mat- 
ters of  religion  only,  when  it  is  supported  by  circumstances 
that  carry  moral  certainty  with  them,  as  it  would  be  weak 
and  simple  to  acquiesce  where  these  circumstances  are 
wanted. 

The  only  method,  therefore,  of  arriving  at  the  truth,  is 
by  analysis  and  investigation  :  I  mean  for  men  of  learning 
and  abilities ;  for,  as  to  the  common  people,  their  faith 
must  rest  chiefly  upon  authority  ;  but  this  authority  need 
not  be  infallible.  Evident  and  simple  truths  are  easily  be- 
lieved without  infallibility  in  their  teachers,  and  such  as 
consist  in  subtile  discussions,  seldom  appertain  to  the  es- 
sence of  religion.  It  would  be  cruel  to  challenge  the  be- 
lief of  them,  from  people  who  cannot  possibly  have  an  idea 


SOI 

of  their  merits.  In  obscure  cases,  the  decision  of  no  infal- 
lible authority  is  requisite,  because  such  cases  are  gene- 
rally necessary.  But  whether  such  a  decision  takes  place 
or  no,  it  cannot  certainly  alter  the  nature  of  truth,  nor 
change  the  force  of  argument,  that  makes  for  or  against  it. 
What,  therefore,  we  must  do,  is  to  bear  wnth  each  other's 
opinions  in  meekness  and  charity.  Both  reason  and  religion 
abhor  the  idea  of  domineering  over  the  belief  of  our  neigh- 
bour. Each  one  has  an  unalienable  right  of  thinking  for 
himself  in  matters  of  religion,  as  in  all  others,  and  adopting 
the  principles  which  good  sense  and  an  upright  conscience 
suggest.  And,  indeed,  why  in  religion  only  should  this 
method  be  rejected  ?  Does  not  every  man  believe,  because 
he  regards  the  object  of  his  belief  grounded  upon  reason  1 
Must  not  even  a  Roman  Catholic  tell  us,  that  he  believes 
his  to  be  the  only  true  Church,  because  such  a  belief  ap- 
pears to  him  rational  and  certain  ?  If  his  belief  be  not  ra- 
tional, if  he  submit  to  authority,  without  understanding  or 
weighing  the  doctrines  it  inculcates,  his  belief  is  not  faith, 
it  is  credulity,  it  is  weakness.  A  man  might  with  equal 
reason  be  a  Jew,  a  Mahometan,  or  a  Deist,  as  they  ground 
their  principles  upon  an  authority,  whose  decrees  they 
deem  sacred,  and  which  they  neglect  to  examine.  Let  the 
merit,  therefore,  of  a  blind  submission  be  ever  so  much  ex- 
tolled, I  will  maintain,  that  faith  cannot  be  meritorious, 
unless  it  be  rational  ;  and  it  can  be  rational  in  him  only, 
who  knows  and  weighs  the  arguments  that  enforce  it. 
Nay,  should  he  be  fortunate  enough  to  hit  upon  truth, 
without  such  an  inquiry,  his  faith  in  that  case  would  be  of 
little  value,  as  he  could  assign  no  reasons  for  being  secured 
from  error.  The  knowledge,  then,  of  all  religion,  both 
natural  and  revealed,  depends  upon  inquiry.  It  is  the  only 
method  of  arriving  at  truth,  and  every  man  who  has  his  sal- 
vation at  heart,  ought  diligently  to  adopt  it.  The  grace  of 
the  Almighty  will  never  be  wanting  to  those  who  do  it  with 
sincerity  and  attention. 

c  c 


302 

Whether  they  who  admit  this  plea  to  infallibility,  or  they 
who  reject  it,  would  be  more  likely  to  arrive  at  the  true 
meaning  of  the  Scriptures  on  doctrinal  points,  is  a  ques- 
tion which  Roman  Catholic  writers  themselves  have  deter- 
mined. 

"  In  a  work  (says  Dr.  Magee,)  which,  within  a  few  years, 
has  obtained  the  most  distinguished  mark  of  approbation, 
from  the  highest  learned  society  of  a  nation  holding  com- 
munion with  the  Church  of  Rome,  we  meet  with  a  detailed 
statement  of  those  causes,  which  have  disqualified  the  vo- 
taries of  that  Church  for  the  task  of  Scripture  interpreta- 
tion. After  an  enumeration  of  the  advantages  derived  to 
the  literature  and  civilization  of  Christendom,  from  reli- 
gious houses,  as  depositaries  of  the  remains  of  ancient 
learning,  the  author  thus  proceeds  : — '  If  the  churchmen 
preserved  in  this  manner  the  fctint  tradition  of  knowledge, 
it  must,  at  the  same  time  be  acknowledged,  that  in  their 
hands  it  more  than  once  became  dangerous,  and  was  con- 
verted by  its  guardians  to  pernicious  purposes.  The  do- 
mination of  Rome,  built  upon  a  scaffolding  of  false  histori- 
cal proofs,  had  need  of  the  assistance  of  those  faithful  auxi- 
liaries, to  employ  on  the  one  side  their  half  knowledge  to 
fascinate  men's  eyes,  and  on  the  other  to  prevent  those 
eyes  from  perceiving  the  truth,  and  from  becoming  en- 
lightened by  the  torch  of  criticism.  The  local  usurpations 
of  the  clergy,  in  several  places,  were  founded  on  similar 
claims,  and  had  need  of  similar  means  for  their  preserva- 
tion. It  followed,  therefore,  both  that  the  little  knowledge 
permitted  should  be  mixed  with  error,  and  that  the  nations 
should  be  carefully  maintained  in  profound  ignorance, 
favourable  to  superstition.  Learning,  as  far  as  possible, 
was  rendered  inaccessible  to  the  laity.  The  study  of  the 
ancient  languages  was  represented  as  idolatrous  and  abomi- 
nable. Above  all,  the  reading  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  that 
sacred  inheritance  of  all  Christians,  was  severely  interdict- 
ed.    To  read  the  Bible,  without  the  permission  of  one's 


303 

superiors,  was  a  crime:  to  translate  it  into  the  vulgar 
tongue,  would  have  been  a  temerity  worthy  of  the  severest 
punishment.  The  popes  had  indeed  their  reasons  for  pre- 
venting the  word  of  Jesus  Christ  from  reaching  the  people, 
and  a  direct  communication  from  being  established  between 
the  Gospel  and  the  Christian.  When  it  becomes  necessary 
to  keep  in  the  shade  objects  as  conspicuous  as  faith  and 
public  worship,  it  behooved  the  darkness  to  be  universal 
and  impenetrable.'  {Viller''s  Essay  on  the  Reformation  of 
Luther,  p.  88,  90.)  The  same  writer,  in  another  place, 
thus  contrasts  the  characters  of  the  Protestant  and  Romish' 
Churches,  as  to  their  grounds  of  assent  to  sacred  truths. 
The  Church  of  Rome  said,  'Submit,  without  examination, 
to  authority  !'  The  Protestant  Church  said,  '  Examine, 
and  submit  only  to  thy  own  conviction.'  'The  one  com- 
manded men  to  believe  blindly  :  the  other  taught  them, 
with  the  Apostle,  to  reject  the  bad,  and  choose  only  that 
which  is  good.'  {Ibid.  p.  294.)  And  when  the  Church  of 
of  Rome,  was,  at  length,  obliged,  by  the  necessities  of  self- 
defence,  to  grant  to  her  faithful  sons  the  privilege  of  theo- 
logical investigation,  in  what  way  does  the  same  writer  re- 
present the  system  of  studies  permitted  for  this  purpose  ? 
The  theology  of  the  Romanist,  and  that  of  the  Protestant, 
he  describes  as  '  two  worlds  in  opposite  hemispheres, 
which  have  nothing  commom  except  the  name.'  '  The 
Catholic  theology  rests  (says  he)  on  the  inflexible  authority 
of  the  decisions  of  the  Church,  and  therefore  debars  the 
man  who  studies  it  from  all  free  exercise  of  his  reason. 
It  has  preserved  the  jargon,  and  all  the  barbarous  appen- 
dages of  the  scholastic  philosophy.  We  perceive  in  it  the 
work  of  darkness  of  the  monks  of  the  tenth  century.  In 
short,  the  happiest  thing  which  can  befall  him  who  has  un- 
fortunately learnt  it,  is  speedily  to  forget  it.  The  Pro- 
testant theology,  on  the  contrary,  rests  on  a  system  of  exa- 
mination, on  the  unlimited  use  of  reason.  The  most  libe- 
ral exegesis  opens  for  it  the  knowledge  of  sacred  antiquity; 


304 

criticism,  that  of  the  history  of  the  Church  ;  it  regards  the 
doctrinal  part,  reduced  to  purity  and  simplicity,  as  only  the 
body  of  religion,  the  positive  form  which  it  requires;  and 
it  is  supported  by  philosophy  in  the  examination  of  the 
laws  of  nature,  of  morality,  and  of  the  relations  of  men  to 
the  Divine  Being.  Whoever  wishes  to  be  instructed  in 
history,  in  classical  literature,  and  philosophy,  can  choose 
nothing  better  than  a  course  of  Protestant  theology.'  (Ibid. 
p.  307,  308.)  Such  are  the  observations  contained  in  a 
work,  which  has  been  distinguished  by  a  prize,  conferred 
by  the  national  institute  of  France. 

"  Perhaps  one  of  the  most  decisive  proofs  of  the  justice 
of  this  writer's  remarks  on  the  state  of  sacred  literature  in 
the  Roman  Church,  has  been  supplied  by  the  late  republi- 
cation, in  this  country,  of  that  wretched  specimen  of  Scrip- 
ture criticism,  Ward^s  Errata.  This  powerless  offspring 
of  a  feeble  parent,  which  was  supposed  to  have  perished 
when  it  first  saw  the  light  above  a  century  ago,  has  lately, 
upon  signs  of  reanimation,  been  hailed  in  Ireland  with 
shouts  of  joy.  And  the  meagre  abstract  of  '  Gregory  Mar- 
tin's discovery  of  the  manifold  corruptions  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,'  a  work  which  has  itself  lain  for  two  hundred 
years  overwhelmed  by  confutation,  has  been  received  by 
the  Romanists  of  this  part  of  the  empire,  with  agratulation 
that  might  well  become  the  darkest  ages  of  the  Church. 
A  work  condemning  the  Protestant  translation  of  the  Bible 
for  using  the  term  messenger  instead  of  angel  (in  Mai.  ii. 
7,  iii.  1.  Matt.  xi.  10.  Luke  vii.  27,  &;c.)  by  which  the 
character  of  angel  is  withdrawn  from  the  -priesthood,  and  of 
a  sacrament  from  orders: — for  not  rendering  the  words  {in 

Hehr.    xi.     21,)    Trpoa-inwHo-iv  Em  to  «x.pov  T«f  pCJ«  avTa,    as   the 

Rhemish  does,  adored  the  top  of  his  rod,  and  thereby  surrep- 
titiously removing  one  of  the  principal  Scripture  arguments 
for  image  worship: — for  ascribing  to  the  word  7D^>  in 
the  second  commandment,  the  meaning  graven  imagCy 
whilst  the  Rhemish  renders  it  graven  things  which,  with 


305 

those  who  admit  an  image  not  to  be  a  thing,  will  exempt 
images  from  the  prohibition  of  the  commandment : — for  not 
givinsr  to  the  words  M^ra.votu^  and  pcenitentia,  the  sense  of 
penance,  but  merely  assigning  to  them  their  true  interpre- 
tation, repentance,  and  thus  doing  wilful  despite  to  the  sa- 
crament of  penance,- — a  work,  1  say,  condemning  the  Pro- 
testant translations  of  the  Bible  for  these,  and  some  other 
such  errors  ;  and  in  all  cases  demonstrating  the  error  by 
one  and  the  same  irrefragable  proof — that  the  Romish  ver- 
sion is  the  true  one,  and  that  the  Protestant  version,  which 
differs  from  it,  must  consequently  be  false — is  certainly  not 
such  a  one  as  might,  in  the  nineteenth  century,  be  expect- 
ed to  be  raked  up  by  the  clergy  of  a  widely  extended  com- 
munion, and  exhibited  triumphantly  as  a  masterpiece  of 
critical  erudition.  In  the  opinion  of  many,  this  miserable 
performance  did  not  deserve  an  answer ;  especially  as 
every  argument  which  it  contained  had  been  in  former 
times  repeatedly  confuted.  Perhaps,  however,  they  judged 
more  rightly,  who  thought,  that  even  the  weakest  reason- 
ings should  be  exposed,  lest  they  might  be  imagined  to  be 
strong,  and  that  even  the  most  hackneyed  arguments  should 
be  replied  to,  lest  they  might  be  conceived  to  be  new. 
Accordingly,  this  work  received  an  answer  from  Dr.  Ryan, 
whose  zealous  exertions  in  the  cause  of  religious  truth  are 
well  known,  and  is  about  to  receive  another  from  the  Re- 
verend Richard  Grier,  of  Middletown.  .These  gentle- 
men, at  all  events,  display  courage  in  their  enterprise, 
since  the  author  whom  they  attack,  backed  by  the  whole 
council  of  Trent,  has  pronounced,  that  whosoever  shall  not 
receive  the  books  of  Scripture,  as  they  are  read  in  the  Ca- 
tholic (Roniish)  Church,  and  as  they  are  in  the  Vulgate 
Latin  edition,  shall  he  accursed.     {Errata,  p.  37.) 

"  How  little  the  orthodox  member  of  the  Romish  Church 
is,  at  this  day,  to  expect  serious  consideration  in  the  walks 
of  serious  criticism,  may  be  inferred  from  the  description 

given  of  him  by  a  doctor  of  his  own  communion.     '  The 

c  c  2 


S06 

vulgar  papist  rests  his  faith  on  the  supposed  infallibility  of 
his  Church,  although  he  knows  not  where  that  infallibility 
is  lodged,  nor  in  what  it  properly  consists  :  it  is  to  him  a 
general,  vague,  indefinite  idea,  which  he  never  thinks  of 
analysing.  He  reads  in  his  catechism,  or  is  told  by  his 
catechist,  that  the  Church  cannot  err  in  what  she  teaches  : 
and  then  he  is  told,  that  this  unerring  Church  is  composed 
only  of  those  who  hold  communion  with  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  and  precisely  believe  as  he  and  the  bishops  who  are 
in  communion  with  him  believe.  From  that  moment  rea- 
son is  set  aside;  authority  usurps  its  place,  and  implicit 
faith  is  the  necessary  consequence.  He  dares  not  even 
advance  to  the  first  step  of  Des  Cartes'  logic  :  he  dares  not 
doubt :  for  in  his  table  of  sins,  which  he  is  obliged  to  con- 
fess, he  finds  doubting  in  matters  of  faith  to  be  a  grievous 
crime.''  Such  is  Dr.  Geddes'  account  of  him  whom  he  is 
pleased  to  call  the  vulgar  papist ;  under  which  title  he 
in  truth  means  to  include,  all  who  are  sincere  votaries  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  and  whom  that  Church  would  ac- 
knowledge as  such  :  in  other  words,  he  means  by  this 
term  to  designate  all  who  are  actually  within  the  pale  of 
popery. 

"  And  let  it  not  be  supposed  that  this  is  the  testimony 
of  an  enemy  in  the  disguise  of  a  friend ;  and  that  the  au- 
thor, whilst  he  assumed  the  name  of  Catholic,  was  influ- 
enced by  the  feelings  of  a  Protestant.  On  the  contrary,  it 
is  manifest  from  the  following  passage  that  his  mind  re- 
mained under  the  powerful  influence  of  Romish  impres- 
sion, and  that  he  continued  still  a  partisan  of  that  faith 
whose  errors  he  affected  to  decry.  '  For',  says  he,  '  is  the 
faith  of  the  vulgar  Protestant  better  founded  '.'  He  rests  it 
on  a  book  called  the  Holy  Bible,  which  he  believes  to  be 
thejinfallible  word  of  God.'  And  thus  he  pronounces  the  faith 
.  of  the  Protestant  and  of  the  Papist  to  be  alike  implicit  and 
alike  unfounded.  '  If  the  instructor  of  the  Protestant  be 
asked  how  he  knows  that  the  book  which  he  puts  into  the 


307 

hand  of  his  catechumen  is  the  infallible  word  of  God  ;  he 
cannot,  like  the  priest^  appeal  to  an  unerring  Church  ;  he 
acknowledges  no  such  guide  :  and  yet  it  is  hard  to  conceive 
what  other  better  argument  he  can  use.^  He  goes  on  even 
to  pronounce,  that  '  in  the  popish  controversy,  the  Roman- 
ists have,  on  this  point,  the  better  side  of  the  question  ; 
called,  by  some  of  their  controvertialists,  the  question  of  ques- 
tions.'' And  in  what  way  does  their  superiority  appear 
upon  this  question  of  questions  ?  By  '  its  never  having 
been  satisfactorily  solved  by  the  Romanists  themselves : 
they  having  always  reasoned  in  what  is  termed  a  vicious 
circle  ;  proving  the  infallibility  of  the  Church  from  the  autho- 
rity of  Scripture,  and  the  authority  of  Scripture  from  the 
Church'' s  infallibility,^  (^Preface  to  Critical  Rema7'ks,  p. 
5.)  This  must  undoubtedly  have  given  the  Romanists  the 
better  side  of  the  question;  for  what  Protestant  logician 
could  successfully  reply  to  such  an  argument  ?  But  the 
reader  must  be  wearied  of  this  fatuity.'' 

Much  reasoning  is  expended,  to  no  purpose,  by  the  Rev. 
gentleman  in  proving  the  perpetual  visibility  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church.  Can  he  be  ignorant,  or  does  he  wish  to  mis- 
lead his  readers  with  the  idea,  that  tiiis  visibility  is  denied 
by  Protestants?  No  ;  the  Church,  they  contend,  has  been 
always  visible.  Her  features,  indeed,  have  at  some  periods 
been  clouded  with  the  mists  of  error,  superstition,  and 
folly  ;  while  at  others  they  have  displayed,  in  heavenly 
effulgence,  all  the  beauty  of  holiness.  "  This  Church," 
says  the  Rev.  gentleman,  "  always  discoverable,''''  &lq,.  "  can- 
not^ cease  to  be  the  true  Church.''''  And  who  denies  it  ? 
"  Therefore,  we  must  conclude,  at  the  same  time,  cannot 
teach  errors  contrary  to  faith.  Here  is  a  very  short  and 
simple  reasoning,  but  which  terminates  at  once  all  contro- 
versies on  matters  of  religion  ;  and,  until  it  be  answered, 
(which  will  never  be  done  wdth  any  success,)  we  have  a 
right  always  to  refuse,  if  we  please,  to  enter  upon  the  dis- 
cussion of  any  particular  article."     He   then  concludes  : 


508 

"  The  Church  of  Christ  cannot  err  in  matters  of  faith, 
therefore  all  her  decisions  are  true,  all  her  doctrine  the 
true  faith  of  Clirist ;  therefore  confession  of  sins,  taught 
by  the  same  Church,  to  have  been  instituted  by  Christ, 
and  to  be  necessary  to  salvation,  was,  indeed,  instituted 
by  Christ,  and  is  indeed  necessary  to  salvation." 

Here  is  the  Sampson  of  all  the  Rev.  gentleman's  argu- 
ments, bearing  him  in  trium{3h  through  every  difficulty,  and 
scattering  all  opposition  like  dust  before  the  wind !  But 
what  will  be  said  to  this  simple  position?  Every  Christian 
Church,  and  the  Roman  among  the  rest,  has  taught  erro- 
neous doctrines ;  therefore,  they  can  teach  them :  "  ah 
actu  ad  potentiairi'^  is  sound  logical  reasoning.  In  the 
foregoing  pages  this  has  been  proved  respecting  auricular 
confession,  and  therefore,  in  the  words  of  the  Rev.  gen- 
tleman, terminates  at  once  all  controvei'sy  respecting  the 
infallibility  of  his  Church. 

But,  it  is  said,  "  if  the  Church  should  at  any  time  teach 
errors  contrary  to  faith,  she  would  cease  from  that  instant 
to  be  the  true  Church."  Agreed — if  such  errors  subvert 
the  foundations  of  the  Christian  religion,  as  revealed  in 
the  Scriptures.  Errors,  however,  of  this  description, 
never  infected  the  whole  body  of  the  Church  :  they  were 
either  unknown  to  antiquity,  or,  when  beginning  to  appear, 
were  reprobated,  and  resisted.  This  might  readily  be 
proved  of  every  doctrine  which  Protestants  deem  erro- 
neous; and  when  at  length  the  profligate  abuses,  and  de- 
grading tyranny  of  the  Roman  Church  were  carried  to  ex- 
cesses no  longer  to  be  tolerated,  the  reformers  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  treading  in  the  footsteps  of  many  illus- 
trious predecessors,  justified  their  separation,  not  by  al- 
leging that  the  foundations  of  Christianity  were  demolish- 
ed, but  that  so  much  hay  and  stubble  had  been  heaped 
upon  them,  as  to  render  further  communion  with  a  Church 
which  refused  to  remove  them,  incompatihle  with  Chris- 
tian sincerity  and  worship.    The  great  mistake  of  the  Rev. 


309 

gentleman,  consists  in  confounding  the  Roman  with  the 
Catholic  Church,  in  applying  to  the  former  the  promises 
meant  only  for  the  latter.  Against  this  the  gates  of  hell 
were  never  to  prevail,  either  by  overturning  the  founda- 
tions of  religion,  or  preventing  its  doctrines  being  preach- 
ed to  all  nations.  As  long  as  the  Church  of  Rome  taught 
nothing  inconsistent  with  these  fundamental  doctrines,  so 
long  was  she  a  sound  member  of  the  Catholic  Church  : 
and  when,  in  latter  ages,  she  engrafted  upon  Scriptural 
doctrines  such  unwarrantable  innovations,  as  occasioned 
many  individuals  and  societies  to  secede  from  her  commu- 
nion, she  continued  still  to  be  a  member  of  the  Christian 
Church  ;  but  amalgamating  with  the  doctrines  essential  to 
salvation,  a  heterogeneous  compound  of  scholastic  subtle- 
ties, burthensome  observances,  and  superstitious  practices, 
as  terms  of  communion,  she  obscured  the  divine  simplicity 
of  the  Gospel,  she  perplexed  the  consciences  of  Christians 
with  articles  which  the  ignorant  could  not  comprehend,  nor 
the  learned  explain.  As  far  as  this  was  the  case,  the 
Church  of  Rome  must  drop  her  plea  to  infallibility  ;  and 
that  it  has  frequently  been  the  case,  and  is  so  at  this  day, 
history,  and  the  known  articles  of  her  faith,  sufficiently 
testify.  But  as  far  as  she  adopts,  in  common  with  the 
Protestant  Churches,  the  same  profession  of  faith  as  ex- 
pressed in  the  Apostles'  creed,  and  the  fundamental  arti- 
cles of  religion  essentially  connected  with  and  emanating 
from  it,  so  far  would  Protestants  be  disposed  to  cultivate 
with  her  a  unitj/  of  spirit  and  bond  of  peace,  and  excite  a 
holy  emulation  for  righteousness  of  life.  By  acknowledg- 
ing a  liability  to  error,  and  adhering  steadfastly  and  ex- 
clusively to  the  plain  and  obvious  doctrines  of  the  Gospel ; 
Christian  morality,  practical  piety,  and  solid  devotion, 
would  attract  much  of  that  attention  which  is  now  wasted 
upon  points  of  minor  importance.  "  We  have  constantly 
seen,"  (says  Dr.  Milner,  Ch.  Hisior.  vol.  4.  p.  208,)  "in 
the  course  of  this  history,   that  the  holiness  of  heart  and 


310 

life,  which  real  Christians  have  evidenced  from  age  to  age, 
was  always  connected  with  the  peculiar  doctrines  of  Chris- 
tianity. Sometimes  one  of  these  doctrines,  and  some- 
times another,  constituted  the  prominent  feature  of  their 
profession  ;  but  it  is  in  vain  to  look  for  men  of  real  holi- 
ness and  virtue,  who  were  inimical,  or  even  indifferent  to 
the  fundamentals  of  the  Gospel. 

These  fundamental  doctrines  of  salvation  are  clearly 
and  explicitly  revealed  in  the  Bible,  which  speaks  a  lan- 
guage full  as  intelligible  as  that  of  any  pope  or  council 
can  be.  This  book  is  the  religion  of  Protestants,  and  af- 
fords the  greatest  security  that  can  be  given  in  the  present 
state  of  things.  It  is  the  word  of  God  himself,  and  ac- 
knowledged as  such  by  all  Christian  Churches.  Nay, 
Roman  Catholics  themselves  consider  it,  on  some  occa- 
sions, as  a  sufficient  guide  to  truth  ;  for  why  else  do  they 
appeal  to  it  to  prove  the  infallible  authority  of  their 
Church,  and  indeed  almost  every  other  tenet  of  their  faith  ? 
Why  does  the  Rev.  gentleman  appeal  to  its  testimony  in 
favour  of  sacramental  confession  ?  And  have  not  Pro- 
testants an  equal  right  to  this  unerring  testimony  upon 
points  much  more  clearly  delivered?  An  attentive  reader 
of  the  New  Testament  will  hardly  be  persuaded,  that  the 
doctrines  of  transubstantiation,  of  the  pope's  supremacy, 
of  auricular  confession,  or  of  infallibility,  are  as  clearly 
delivered  there,  as  are,  for  instance,  the  precept  of  eating 
bread  and  drinking  wine,  in  commemoration  of  Christ's 
death  and  passion,  and  the  express  command  of  receiving 
this  sacrament  in  both  kinds?  Ho  will  hardly  be  persuad- 
ed that  the  metaphysical  subtleties  in  favour  of  infalli- 
bility can  counterbalance  the  arguments  against  certain 
doctrines,  which  set  all  our  senses  at  defiance,  and  break 
in  upon  the  most  secret  recesses  of  our  bosoms.  In  a 
word,  he  will  more  readily  acquiesce  in  the  position,  that 
the  same  body  cannot  exist  in  many  different  places  at  the 
same  time  ;  that  the  sensible  accidents  of  bodies  cannot 


311 

exist  without  their  appropriate  substances;  that  a  stupen- 
dous miracle  is  not  performed  at  the  celebration  of  every 
mass  :  than  in  the  evidence  for  infallibility  which  is  col- 
lected from  the  Scriptures. 

The  doctrine  of  a  tribunal  upon  earth,  which  cannot  err 
in  its  decisions,  appears  to  be  inconsistent  with  our  nature 
as  rational  beings.  Were  it  possible  it  might,  indeed,  pre- 
vent all  error;  because  where  no  judgment  is  formed, 
there  is  no  mistake.  In  this  case,  however,  our  faculties 
must  be  altered  ;  for  as  they  now  are,  no  infallible  teacher 
could  destroy  our  freedom  of  thought.  Wemust  jndo-e  at 
least  of  his  authority  to  teach  us,  and  whether  what  he 
teaches  be  conformable  to  reason.  This  is  the  guide  which 
must  finally  direct  us.  Whether  God  himself  vouchsafe  to 
speak  to  us,  or  manifest  his  will  by  an  inspired  messenger, 
we  must  still  be  determined  by  our  reason  with  respect  to 
what  he  requires  of  us  to  do  or  to  believe :  so  true  it  is 
that  nothing  can  supersede  the  exercise  of  our  judgment ; 
although,  when  once  convinced  that  God  has  spoken,  it  be- 
comes our  duty  to  obey  without  hesitation  or  doubt. 

As  our  belief,  then,  must  arise  from  conviction,  the 
course  of  argument,  in  all  our  inquiries,  is  this;  "  It  is 
revealed,  therefore  we  must  believe  it,"  and  not,  "  The 
Church  has  taught  it;  therefore  it  must  be  revealed." 
From  a  proper  appeal  to  sense  and  reason,  from  the  mo- 
tives of  credibility,  we  first  convince  ourselves  that  the 
Scriptures  are  inspired  by  Almighty  God,  and  consequently 
possess  a  plenary  authority  :  we  then  believe  the  doctrines 
which  they  contain,  because  they  are  revealed.  But  the 
method  of  reasoning  adopted  by  Roman  Catholics  moves 
on  a  different  plan.  They  admit,  with  other  Christians 
that  the  Scriptures  are  revealed  ;  and  then  they  tell  us 
that  these  Scriptures  teach  the  infallibility  of  their  Church. 
In  proof  of  this,  they  cite  a  few  obscure  and  controverted 
passages,  the  most  forcible  of  which  are  so  very  inconclu- 
sive, that  unless   their  Church  had  pronounced  them    to 


312 

be  plain  and  obvious,  it  would  never  have  entered  into  the 
head  of  any  man  to  rest  so  important  a  doctrine  upon  such 
questionable  evidence. 

Moreover,  if  men  could  be  certain  of  the  truth  of  Chris- 
tianity, when  it  was  first  embraced,  without  any  appeal  to 
a  living,  infallible  judge,  they  can  surely  be  equally  so  of 
any  of  its  doctrines.  Whatever  is  evident  from  the  com- 
mon principles  of  reason,  is  sufficiently  certain;  to  be  in- 
fallibly so,  is  not  necessary  to  salvation.  The  mercies  of 
God  will  be  extended  to  the  infirmities  of  our  understand- 
ing, as  well  as  to  those  of  our  will.  To  be  scriptural  and 
acceptable,  our  faith  must  be  an  act  of  both  ;  and  there- 
fore its  evidence  cannot  be  irresistible. 

Another  inconvenience  seems  also  to  flow  from  the  doc- 
trine of  infallibility  ;  which  is,  its  tendency  to  throw  man- 
kind into  skepticism  and  infidelity.  For,  when  a  person 
has,  from  his  infancy,  been  taught  the  necessity  of  such  a 
guide,  and  yet  is  unable,  from  argument  or  Scripture,  to 
persuade  himself  of  its  existence  ;  this  unhappy  conflict 
naturally  inclines  him  to  universal  doubt.  It  creates  an 
indifference  to  all  religion,  and  leads  him  to  ascribe  every 
religious  system  on  earth,  rather  to  human  policy,  than  to 
any  revelation  from  above.  When  taught  to  believe  that 
the  doctrines  of  auricular  confession,  of  the  invocation  of 
saints,  transubstantiation,  &;c.  rest  on  the  same  authority 
as  the  divinity  of  Christ,  as  the  fall  of  man,  and  his  reco- 
very through  a  Redeemer,  he  discards  at  once  the  whole 
motley  system,  without  allowing  himself  to  examine  the 
respective  claims  of  these  doctrines  to  his  assent,  or  in- 
vestigating the  authority  which  sanctions  them  all  alike. 
To  affirm,  therefore,  that  the  evidences  in  favour  of  seve- 
ral discriminating  doctrines  of  the  Roman  Church,  are  of 
equal  weight  with  those,  which  are  offered  for  the  truth  of 
Christianity  itself,  is  an  assertion  deserving  the  severest 
censure,  and  involving  consequences  destructive  both  to 
moials  and  faith. 


313 

The  pretence  of  tracing  up  the  Roman  Church  to  the 
times  of  the  Apostles,  is  grounded  on  mere  sophistry, 
which  it  it  not  the  business  of  this  reply  to  examine.  The 
succession  which  Roman  Catholics  thus  unfairly  ascribe  to 
their  Church,  belongs  to  every  other,  and  exclusively  to 
none.  But  that  portion  of  the  Christian  Church  is  surely 
best  entitled  to  this  claim,  which  teaches,  in  the  greatest 
purity,  the  doctrines  of  the  Apostles.  The  Roman  Church 
affirms,  that  she  has  succeeded  to  the  Apostles,  and,  there- 
fore, is  infallible.  Protestants  show  that  many  of  her  doc- 
trines are  unscriptural  and  novel,  and  that,  therefore,  she 
is  not  so.  Let  any  candid  person  pronounce,  which  of 
these  two  arguments  is  fairest  and  most  conclusive.  "  They 
have  not  the  inheritance  of  Peter,"  (says  St.  Ambrose^ 
lib.  1,  de  pan.)  "  who  have  not  Peter's  faith." 

If  it  be  urged,  that  without  an  infallible  guide  there  can 
be  no  unity  in  faith,  nothing  but  universal  anarchy  and 
confusion,  let  its  advocates  show,  that  this  tenet  has  al- 
ways prevented  heresy  and  schism  :  let  them  show,  that 
fewer  dissentions  have  arisen  in  the  bosom  of  the  Roman 
Church  than  among  the  adherents  to  the  Westminster  con- 
fession of  faith,  or  to  the  articles  of  the  English  Church. 
It  will  be  found,  that  since  the  first  ebullitions  of  intem- 
perate zeal,  which  took  place  at  the  period  of  the  reforma- 
tion, occasioned  by  the  natural  incapacity  of  the  human 
mind  to  bear  the  sudden  effulgence  of  truth  after  a  long 
series  of  tyranny  and  delusion,  have  settled  down  into  re- 
gular systems  of  faith,  and  bodies  of  discipline  in  the  Pro- 
testant Churches,  fewer  instances  have  occurred  among 
them  of  destructive  heresies,  and  desolating  contentions, 
than  during  an  equal  period  of  time  disturbed  the  peace 
of  Christendom. 

We  may  observe  further,  that  the  boasted  uniformity  of 
the  Roman  Church  is  a  mere  fiction,  amounting  in  fact  to 
nothing  more  than  this,  that  all  who  believe  as  she  does, 
are  of  her  religion  :  for  when  any  persons  are  pointed  out, 

Dd 


314 

however  virtuous  and  learned,  who  have  at  any  time  dis- 
sented from  her  doctrines,  the  answer  is,  that  such  per- 
sons could  not  be  deemed  Roman  Catholics.  This  is  a 
palpable  evasion :  as  no  one  ever  doubted,  but  that  when 
she  has  excommunicated  all  who  dissent  from  her  decrees, 
those  who  remain  in  her  communion  must  be  of  her  re- 
ligion. 

The  disagreements  among  Protestant  communities  are 
neither  very  numerous  nor  very  important,  nor  do  they 
spring  from  any  want  of  an  infallible  guide.  It  is  neither 
the  obscurity  of  the  written  law  that  divides  them,  nor  the 
infallibility  of  their  Church,  which  keeps  Roman  Catholics 
united.  This  pretended  unity  arises  chiefly  from  the  ri- 
gorous strength  of  her  external  policy  :  and  however  the 
sentiments  of  her  adherents  may  differ,  as  they  frequently 
do,  yet  they  continue  to  hold  the  same  language,  because 
they  dare  not  hold  any  other.  Not  only  an  expression, 
but  a  voluntary  doubt,  incurs  the  severest  penalties  of  their 
Church.  An  apparent  uniformity  of  worship  and  lan- 
guage, upheld  by  measures  thus  violent,  is  much  more 
calculated  to  make  men  hypocrites,  than  to  cement  them 
together,  either  in  the  bonds  of  the  same  sincere  belief, 
or  of  cordial  affection  and  reciprocal  kindness.  It  is  the 
fear  of  being  considered  as  heretics  and  unbelievers,  the 
severity  of  Church  discipline,  the  ignorance  in  which 
Roman  Catholics  are  educated  with  respect  to  the  doc- 
trines of  Protestants,  and  the  motives  of  their  dissent ;  but 
above  all,  it  is  the  certainty,  in  case  they  abandon  their 
communion,  of  never  being  cordially  forgiven  by  those 
with  whom  they  were  most  intimately  connected,  by  the 
ties  both  of  nature  and  friendship,  which  detains  many  in 
their  Church,  rather  than  any  sincere  and  rational  con- 
viction of  the  superiority  of  their  belief  to  that  of  their 
neighbours. 

The  reader  will  probably  be  now  induced  to  acknowledge, 
that  slender  indeed  are  the  pretensions  to  infallibility,  on 


315 

which  the  Rev.  gentleman  builds  the  sacrament  of  auricu- 
lar confession,  and  that  he  would  have  acted  more  prudently 
by  confining  himself  entirely  to  the  Scriptures;  but  the 
few  equivocal  and  doubtful  passages  which  he  discovers 
there,  would  not  have  answered  his  purpose.  An  over- 
whelming authority  was  necessary  to  establish  a  point, 
which  seems  an  outrage  to  the  sense  and  independence  of 
man.  But  neither  is  such  authority  as  we  have  seen,  nor 
an  obligation  to  resort  to  it,  to  be  found  in  the  oracles  of 
God.  These  alone,  independently  of  the  interpretations  of 
fallible  men,  constitute  the  rule  and  limits  of  a  Christian's 
belief.  "  Whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime,  were 
written  for  our  learning,  for  our  instruction."  {Rom.  xv.  4.) 
*'  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  pro- 
fitable for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness."  (2  Tim.  iii.  16.)  "  Search  the  Scrip- 
tures, for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life." 

On  this  solid  ground  the  Protestant  plants  the  standard 
of  his  faith.  This  is  his  rallying  point  amidst  the  conten- 
tions of  theologians,  the  bulls  of  popes,  and  the  decrees  of 
councils,  which  have  so  frequently  obscured,  so  seldom 
elucidated  the  doctrines  of  the  Gospel.  A  few  passages 
from  the  ancient  fathers  will  show  what  was  their  opinion 
on  the  subject,  and  if  some  of  a  contrary  tendency  should 
be  alleged,  it  will  only  prove  that  their  notions  of  a  rule  of 
faith  were  very  vague  and  unsettled,  and  by  no  means  in 
unison  with  those  who  conceive  that  in  tradition  and  the 
Church,  they  possess  an  additional  rule  to  that  held  forth 
in  the  Scriptures. 

The    opinions  of  some  of  the  ancient  Fathers  concerning 
Scripture,  as  a  rule  of  faith. 

"  The  Apostles  preached  the  Gospel,  but  afterwards  de- 
livered  it  to  us  in  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  foundation  and 


316 

pillar  of  our  faith." — St.  Irenceus  adv.  hsereses,  lib,  iii. 
cap.  1. 

"  I  do  not  follow  men,  or  human  doctrines,  but  I  follow 
God,  and  what  he  taught." — Justinus  Martyr  in  collo* 
cum.  Trypone. 

"The  holy  and  divinely  inspired  Scriptures  suffice  for 
our  instruction  in  all  truth." — St.  Athan.  contra.  Gentes. 

"  Cannot  God  speak  distinctly,  who  created  our  under- 
standing, our  voice,  and  our  tongue?  Yes,  his  divine  pro- 
vidence chose  that  divine  things  should  be  void  of  obscu- 
rity, that  all  might  understand  those  things  which  he  spoke 
to  all  men." — Lactantius  lib.  Institu.  6.  cap.  21, 

"For  as  the  holy  evangelist  himself  testifies,  our  Lord 
said  and  did  many  things  which  are  not  written  ;  but  those 
things  were  selected  to  be  written,  which  appeared  suffi- 
cient for  the  salvation  of  the  faithful." — St,  Augustinvs 
super.  Joan.  cap.  11.  tract.  4&. 

"^What  more  shall  I  teach  you,  than  what  we  read  in 
the  Apostle?  for  the  holy  Scripture  fixes  the  rule  of  our 
doctrine,  lest  we  presume  to  be  wise  beyond  what  is 
proper." — Idem  de  bono  viduitatis  cap,  1. 

"  Those  things  which  the  Scripture  plainly  contains,  it 
speaks  without  disguise,  like  a  familiar  friend,  to  the  heart 
of  the  learned  and  unlearned." — Idem  Epist.  3. 

"Among  those  things  which  are  plainly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  all  those  things  are  to  be  found,  which  compre- 
hend faith  and  good  morals,  viz.  hope  and  charity." — Idem, 
de  doct.  Christ.  I.  2.  cap.  9. 

Rem.  Can  any  reasonable  man  imagine,  that  St.  Augus- 
tine would  have  spoken  in  this  manner  if  it  had  been  an 
article  of  his  faith,  that  Scripture  is  not  a  sufficient  rule  of 
our  belief? 

"  All  things  which  our  Lord  did  are  not  written,  but 
only  what  the  writers  thought  sufficient  for  our  morals  and 
faith." — St,  Cyrill,  lib.  12,  in  Joan. 


317 

"  Without  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  loquacity 
has  no  credit." — St.  Hieronymus  in  Titum  cap.  1. 

"  The  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  that  which  is  de- 
livered in  the  canonical  books  against  which,  if  the  coun- 
cils should  make  any  decree,  I  deem  it  impious." — Idemin 
Gallatas. 

"Whatever  has  no  authority  from  the  Scriptures,  is  de- 
spised as  easily  as  it  is  alleged." — Idem  in  23.  cap.  Math. 

"Let  us  not  hear  any  more  of  these  expressions,  I  say  so 
and  so,  and  you  say  so  and  so,  but  rather  thus  says  our 
Lord.  We  have  his  books,  which  both  of  us  profess  to  be- 
lieve :  there  let  us  seek  for  the  Church,  there  let  us  discuss 
our  pretensions.  Again  :  Let  every  argument  be  suppress- 
ed, which  we  allege  against  each  other,  if  it  be  drawn  from 
any  source  but  the  canonical  books.  Perhaps  somebody 
will  ask,  why  do  you  wish  such  arguments  to  be  suppress- 
ed? Because  I  am  unwilling  that  the  holy  Church  should 
be  demonstrated  by  human  documents,  but  by  the  divine 
oracles.  Wherefore,  in  the  holy  canonical  Scriptures,  let 
us  seek  for  the  Church.  {Ct.  cap.  6.)  Read  us  this  from  the 
psalms,  from  the  law,  from  the  prophets,  from  the  Gospel, 
read  it  from  the  epistles  of  the  Apostles,  and  then  let  us  be- 
lieve it.  Again,  {cap.  16.)  Let  them  demonstrate  their 
Church  if  they  can;  not  in  the  discourses  and  reports  of 
the  Africans,  not  in  the  councils  of  their  bishops,  not  in  the 
letters  of  obscure  disputants,  not  in  fallacious  signs  and 
prodigies,  against  which  we  are  warned  and  prepared  by 
the  word  of  our  Lord:  but  in  the  code  of  the  law,  in  the 
predictions  of  the  prophets,  in  the  songs  of  the  psalms,  in 
the  words  of  the  Sheplierd  himself,  in  the  preaching  and 
labours  of  the  evangelists,  that  is,  in  all  the  canonical  au^ 
thorities  of  the  holy  books.  Again  :  Let  him  not  say  thi& 
is  true,  because  this  or  that  person  has  wrought  such  and 
such  miracles,  or  because  some  are  heard  who  pray  at  the 
monuments  (ad  memorias)  of  the  martyrs,  or  because  such 

and  such  things  happen  there,  or  because  he  or  she  has  seen 

D  d2 


318 

such  a  vision  whilst  awake,  or  dreamed  of  it  whilst  asleep^ 
Away  with  these  fictions  of  lying  men  or  prodigies  of  de- 
ceitful spirits  !  And  {cap,  20.)  Insist  on  their  showing  you 
some  manifest  testimonies  from  the  canonical  books.  Re- 
member that  it  is  the  saying  of  our  Lord,  they  have  Moses 
and  the  prophets.'*'' — St,  Aug,  de  unitate  Ecclas.  cap.  3. 

Rem.  What  unprejudiced  man  can  read  these  passages, 
and  yet  continue  to  believe  that  St.  Augustine  maintained, 
as  Roman  Catholics  now  do,  that  besides  the  Scriptures, 
there  is  another  rule  and  ground  of  faith,  of  equal  authority 
with  them  ;  viz.  unwritten  tradition  ?  Where  would  a  man 
have  found  in  any  part  of  the  Scripture,  that  the  Church  of 
Rome  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  Churches,  out  of 
which  no  salvation  can  he  obtained  ;  or  that  the  pope  is 
by  divine  right  the  visible  head  of  the  Christian  Church, 
&c.  dec.  &c. 

"  If  God  be  faithful  in  all  his  sayings,  and  all  his  com- 
mandments be  righteous,  it  is  a  manifest  apostacy  from 
faith,  and  sin  of  pride,  either  to  reject  any  of  those  things 
that  are  written,  or  to  introduce  any  thing  that  is  not  writ- 
ten."— St.  Basil,  in  serm.  de  conf.Jldei. 

"  Wherefore,  let  the  divinely  inspired  Scripture  be 
appointed  our  umpire  ;  and  let  those  be  allowed  to  profess 
the  truth,  whose  doctrines  shall  be  found  agreeing  with  the 
Scriptures  ;  (sermonibus  divinis.") — Idem.  Epist.  80. 

*'  If  any  thing  is  alleged  without  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, then  the  minds  of  the  audience  halt.  But  when  the 
testimony  of  the  divine  word  is  produced  from  the  Scrip- 
ture, it  confirms  the  discourse  of  the  speaker  and  the  mind 
of  the  hearer." — St.  Chrys.  in  Psal.  95. 

*'  Let  us  not  attend  to  the  opinions  of  the  many,  but  let 
us  inquire  into  tlie  things  themselves.  For  it  is  absurd, 
while  we  will  not  trust  other  people  in  pecuniary  matters, 
but  choose  to  count  and  calculate  our  money  ourselves, 
that  in  affairs  of  much  greater  consequence  we  should  im- 
plicitly follow  the  opinions  of  others  ;  especially  as  we  are 


possessed  of  the  most  exact  and  perfect  rule  and  measure, 
by  which  we  may  square  and  regulate  our  inquiries,  viz. 
the  regulations  of  the  divine  laws.  Wherefore,  I  could 
wish  that  all  of  you  would  abandon  what  this  or  that 
man  asserts  for  truth,  and  that  you  would  investigate  all 
these  things  in  the  Scriptures." — Idem*  in  2  ad.  Corinth^ 
horn.  13. 

Rem.  How  a  learned  and  holy  doctor  could  write  this 
passage,  and  yet  regard  the  doctrine  of  private  judgment 
as  heretical,  is  a  paradox  which,  I  fancy,  can  never  be 
cleared  up. 

*'  It  is  right  that  you  should  rest  satisfied  with  those 
things  only  that  are  written ;  a7id,  (lib.  7,)  no  other  dis- 
course is  left  for  the  treatises  of  men  upon  divine  sub- 
jects, except  the  word  of  God." — St.  Hilarius,  lib.  3.  de 
Trinitate. 

*'  We  stand  in  need  of  no  curiosity  since  Jesus  Christ, 
nor  of  any  inquiry  since  the  Gospel." — Tertull.  lib.  de  pro- 
scrip.  Hceret. 

"  We  receive,  acknowledge,  and  venerate  all  things  de- 
livered down  to  us  by  the  law,  the  Prophets,  the  Apostles, 
and  the  Evangelists,  but  besides  these,  we  seek  for  nothing 
else." — St.  Joan.  Damas.  dejide.  Ortho.  I.  I.e.  1. 

"  The  holy  Scripture  surpasses  all  science  and  doctrine. 
It  is  not  therefore  shut  up,  that  it  may  frighten  us,  nor 
open,  that  it  may  become  contemptible  :  but  the  tedious- 
ness  of  it  goes  off  by  use,  and  the  more  it  is  meditated 
upon,  the  more  it  is  beloved." — St.  Greg,  in  Moral. 

"  What  is  there,  either  deficient  or  obscure  ?  In  the 
word  of  God  all  things  are  full  and  perfect,  as  coming 
from  a  full  and  perfect  being." — St,  Hilarius,  lib,  2.  <?« 
Trinitate. 

"  All  things  are  clear  and  perspicuous,  and  nothing  con- 
tradictory is  to  be  found  in  the  Scripture." — St.  Epiph,  con- 
tra Noetianus  hores.  57. 


320 

"  The  Scripture  expounds  itself,  and  does  not  suffer  the 
reader  to  err. — St.  Chrysos.  horn.  12,  in  Genesim. 

"  Nor  is  it  proper  to  assert  any  thing  without  witnesses, 
or  from  fancy  only.  For  when  any  affirmation  is  not 
drawn  from  Scripture,  the  mind  is  in  suspense,  now  it 
assents,  the  next  moment  it  is  dubious,  now  it  rejects  the 
frivolous  assertion,  and  now  again  admits  it  as  probable. 
But  when  the  testimony  of  the  divine  word  is  produced 
from  the  Scriptures,  it  fixes  both  the  discourse  of  the 
speaker,  and  the  mind  of  the  hearer." — Idem  in  Psalm  95. 

"  Whence  have  you  that  tradition  ?  Comes  it  from  the 
authority  of  the  Lord  and  the  Gospel,  or  from  the  Epistles 
of  the  Apostles  ?  For  God  testifies  that  we  are  to  do  those 
things  that  are  written,  dec.  If  it  be  commanded  in  the 
Gospel,  or  contained  in  the  Epistles  or  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles, then  let  us  observe  it  as  a  divine  and  holy  tradition." 
St.  Cyprianus,  Epist.  74. 

Rem.  This  passage  and  some  others  of  St.  Cyprian,  are 
so  very  explicit,  that  Mr.  Rushworth,  a  Roman  Catholic 
controveitist  of  the  last  cenrtury,  is  compelled  to  acknow- 
ledge, that  this  father  seems  to  think  that  the  resolution  of 
faith  was  to  be  made  into  Scripture^  and  not  into  tradition, 
(Dial.  3.  sect.  13.) 

"  Of  those  things  that  are  in  use  among  us,  relating 
either  to  doctrine  or  practice,  some  are  expressly  delivered 
in  the  Scriptures,  and  others  omitted.  What  are  written 
must  by  no  means  be  overlooked,  but  as  to  what  are  omit- 
ted, we  have  a  rule  delivered  to  us  by  St.  Paul  :  All  things 
are  lawful  for  me,  hvt  all  things  are  not  expedient,'''' — St. 
Basil,  in  reg.  hremor.  1 . 

Such  being  the  notions  of  some  of  the  most  eminent 
among  the  primitive  fathers,  we  cannot  wonder  at  their 
zeal  and  eagerness  in  exhorting  all  Christians,  of  every  sex 
and  condition,  to  the  unremitting  reading  and  study  of  the 
Scriptures.  Every  reader,  who  is  the  least  conversant  in 
their  writings,  must  be  convinced  of  this  fact.    How  differ- 


321 

ent  was  the  conduct  of  Christian  teachers  in  the  succeeding 
ages.  During  the  middle  centuries,  those  lamentable  eras 
of  astonishing  ignorance,  a  few  of  the  laity  being  able  to 
read  at  all,  the  greater  part  were  of  consequence  totally 
excluded  from  the  benefits  arising  from  the  meditation  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  the  others  were  taught  that  the 
divine  writings  were  not  composed  for  the  use  of  the  multi- 
tude, and  that  therefore  they  ought  not  to  be  permitted  to 
read  them.  And  as  for  the  explanations  with  which  their 
teachers  favoured  them,  they  were  such  as  could  contribute 
very  little  to  their  knowledge  or  improvement.  Let  any 
reasonable  person  peruse  the  commentators  of  the  Roman  Ca- 
tholic Church  even  down  to  the  seventeenth  century,  and  let 
him  candidly  assert  what  benefit  or  information  he  derived, 
in  general,  from  such  a  perusal.  Will  he  not  acknowledge, 
that  instead  of  the  plain,  obvious,  genuine  and  literal  sense 
of  the  Scriptures,  he  was  chiefly  amused  with  strained  in- 
terpretations, with  allegorical,  tropological  and  anagogical 
significations,  which  superstition  and  ignorance  first  invent- 
ed, and  then  made  sacred? 

Before  we  dismiss  this  subject,  and  take  a  final  leave  of 
the  Rev.  gentleman  and  the  Catholic  Question  together, 
it  may  not  be  amiss  to  notice  the  passport,  which  has  been 
adopted  to  recommend  it  to  the  notice  and  patronage  of 
the  public.  By  a  long  and  tremendous  catalogue  of  penal 
laws  enacted  against  the  Roman  Catholics  of  England  and 
Ireland,  the  present  hostile  antipathies  of  the  country  were 
to  be  kindled  into  a  fiercer  flame  ;  public  compassion  was 
to  be  excited  for  a  persecuted  sect,  and  its  doctrines  thus 
sheltered  under  the  mantle  of  pity,  and  recommended  by 
the  horrors  of  oppression,  were  to  experience  a  more  ready 
and  indulgent  reception.  It  was  calculated  that  the  minds 
of  Protestants,  softened  by  these  enormities,  would  be 
better  disposed  to  receive  the  impressions  which  the  bold 
display  of  unfounded  doctrines  in  the  Appendix  was  in- 
tended to   make.     But  slender,  indeed,  must  be  the  in- 


322 

formation  of  those,  who  can  be  imposed  upon  by  such  an 
artifice.  Can  the  Rev.  gentleman  or  his  learned  coun- 
sellors be  ignorant,  or  presume  that  any  intelligent  reader 
is  ignorant  of  the  history  of  these  statutes,  and  the  policy 
which  enacted  them?  Are  they  unacquainted  with  the 
bulls  of  popes  and  decrees  of  councils,  which  provoked 
them?  Will  they  contend,  that  when  they  were  made,  a 
Protestant  state  or  Church  could  have  subsisted  without 
them  ?  At  present,  indeed,  the  thunders  of  the  Vatican 
are  a  mere  hrutum  fulmen,  a  telum  imbelle  sine  ictn.  But 
they  were  not  always  so,  and  the  co-existing  spirit  of  the 
times  must  be  taken  into  the  account,  when  we  would  de- 
termine respecting  these  laws. 

Having  thrown  off  the  papal  yoke,  and  embraced  the  doc- 
trines of  the  reformation,  it  was  incumbent  upon  the  Bri- 
tish parliament  to  protect  the  independence  of  the  nation 
against  all  the  intrigues  and  attacks  of  the  adherents  and 
emissaries  of  Rome.  Now,  how  could  this  be  done  but 
by  penal  statutes?  The  doctrine  of  religious  persecution, 
previously  to  the  reformation,  had  been  so  unquestionably 
the  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church,  that  for  some  ages, 
we  do  not  meet  with  a  divine  of  any  eminence,  except 
Thomas  Aquinas,  who  was  not  a  zealous  advocate  for  it. 
Neither  has  this  antichristian  tenet  to  this  day  been  re- 
nounced by  the  see  of  Rome.  The  celebrated  Bossuet 
says  expressly,  "  that  heretics  and  schismatics  are  no 
where  excepted  out  of  the  number  of  those  evil  doers^ 
against  whom,  St.  Peter  tells  us,  God  has  armed  Christian 
princes."  (1  Pet.  ii.  14.)  And  in  another  place,  writing 
against  Jurieu,  he  places  the  advocates  for  religious  tolera- 
tion on  the  list  of  heretics. 

The  bull  of  Pope  Pius  V.  published  in  1569,  against 
queen  Elizabeth,  entitled  "  The  declaratory  sentence  of 
the  most  holy  lord  Pius  V.  against  Elizabeth,  the  pretend- 
ed queen  of  England,  and  the  heretics  adhering  to  her," 
and  that  of  Pope  Sixtus  V.  in  1587,  by  which  he  bestows 


323 

her  kingdoms  on  the  first  that  should  seize  them,  were 
surely  sufficient  to  rouse  the  British  parliament,  to  enact 
and  execute  the  severest  statutes  to  obviate  their  baneful 
influence  upon  the  peace  of  the  nation.  What  will  be  said 
of  the  bull  of  Gregory  XIII.  May  13,  1580,  which  is  di- 
rected  "  To  all  and  singular  archbishops  and  other  prelates, 
princes,  &c.  and  people  of  the  kingdom  of  Ireland,"  and 
grants  to  all  the  Irish  who  would  join  the  rebellion  of  the 
Fitzgeralds  of  Desmond,  and  fight  against  queen  Eliza- 
beth, the  same  plenary  pardon  and  remission  of  all  their 
sins,  which  is  granted  to  those  engaged  in  a  holy  war 
against  the  Turks?  What  of  that  published  by  Clement 
VIII.  in  1600,  exhorting  the  Irish  nation  to  join  unani- 
mously in  Tir  Owen's  rebellion  against  the  said  heretical 
queen  ;  and  followed  in  a  few  months  after  by  an  exhorta- 
tory  letter  to  Tir  Owen  himself?  And  when  the  famous 
universities  of  Salamanca  and  Valladolid,  were  consulted 
on  this  point  by  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics,  they  justify 
the  conduct  of  Tir  Owen,  O'Neal,  and  their  associates,  in 
taking  up  arms  against  the  queen  ;  and  condemn,  as  guilty 
of  mortal  sin,  all  the  other  Irish  Catholics,  that  obeyed 
the  queen,  and  fought  in  her  defence.  {Vide  O' Sullivan 
Beares.  Hist.  Cath.  Iber,  compend.) 

In  1626,  Pope  Urban  VIII.  published  a  brief,  exhorting 
the  English  Catholics  to  lose  their  lives  rather  than  be 
drawn  to  take  that  noxious  and  unlawful  oath  of  English 
fidelity,  (condemned  as  such  by  his  predecessor  of  happy 
memory,)  the  object  of  which  is,  "  not  only  that  their  faith 
to  the  king  should  be  secured,  but  that  the  sacred  sceptre 
of  the  universal  Church  should  be  wrested  from  the  vicars 
of  Almighty  God."  And  again,  the  same  pontifl^,  in  the 
year  1643,  granted  a  bull  or  brief  of  "plenary  indulgence 
to  all  the  Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland,  who  joined  in  the 
rebellion  and  horrid  massacre  of  1641."  Now  were  not 
these  unblushing  usurpations  of  the  Roman  see,  and  the 
treasonable  enormities  which  they  encouraged  and  reward- 


324 

od,  to  be  encountered  with  rigorous  laws  and  penalties  by 
a  Protestant  government  ? 

They  who  are  acquainted  with  the  perfidious  machina- 
tions of  king  James  II.  to  overturn  the  established  religion 
of  his  country,  in  defiance  of  the  most  solemn  promises 
and  oaths;  with  the  religious  ferment  which  his  persever- 
ing bigotry  had  excited  in  the  nation,  and  was  prepared  to 
avail  itself  of  the  first  opportunity  to  burst  out  into  open 
rebellion,  will  not  be  surprised  that  very  severe  statutes 
were  deemed  necessary  to  curb  the  zeal  of  fiery  bigots, 
during  the  reign  of  his  immediate  successors.* 

Men  of  a  truly  Christian  spirit,  have  ever  lamented  the 
melancholy  necessity  which  gave  birth  to  the  penal  laws 
in  England  and  Ireland,  and  had  the  Churches  of  England 
or  Scotland  countenanced  or  exercised  persecution  for 
harmless  and  speculative  opinions,  which  could  have  no 
bearing  on  the  peace  and  stability  of  the  government,  there 
would  be  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  them  guilty  of  a  ma- 
nifest departure  from  the  benevolent  maxims  and  precepts 
of  the  Gospel.  Let  Roman  Catholics  show  that  they  have 
done  so,  and  Protestants  will  acknowledge  to  have  been 
themselves  guilty  of  a  grievous  error  in  point  of  morality  ; 
and  by  this  concession,  they  would  act  with  a  consistency 
unknown  to  those  who  have  violated  the  most  sacred  laws 
of  humanity  and  religion,  by  solemnly,  and  upon  princi- 
ple, shedding  torrents  of  blood,  for  no  other  crime  than 
maintaining  the  sacred  rights  of  conscience,  and  doctrines 
totally  unconnected  with  the  state.  These  unchristian 
atrocities  cannot  be  questioned,  and  yet  the  Church,  which 
for  ages  enforced  and  sanctified  them,  pretends  to  be  an 
infallible   guide,  in   morals    as  well   as   in    faith,  to  the 


•  If  the  reader  wishes  for  full  and  satisfactory  information  on  this  sub- 
ject, he  will  find  it  in  an  admirable  speech  of  the  Earl  of  Clare,  lord  high 
chancellor  of  Ireland,  delivered  in  the  Irish  house  of  peers,  March  13, 
1793. 


825 

kingdom  of  the  meek  and  compassionate  Saviour  of  the 
world. 

Mr.  Berington,  a  sensible  advocate  of  the  Roman  Churchy 
when  apologizing  for  the  laws  enacted  against  the  Hugo- 
nots  in  France,  since  the  revocation  of  the  edict  of  Nantes, 
acknowledges  that  they  are  "  extremely  severe."  "  But  it 
must  be  allowed,"  says  he,  "  that  they  were  a  dangerous 
and  powerful  party,  from  whom  the  religion^  if  not  the  civil 
constitution  of  France,  had  every  thing  to  apprehend." 
{Reflec.  p.  92.)  How  applicable  this  reflection  to  the  sub- 
ject before  us  !  For  it  is  evident  that  the  penal  laws 
against  Roman  Catholics  originated  principally  from  appre- 
hensions, not  of  a  religious,  but  of  a  political  nature;  if 
ever  they  did  not,  no  pretence  can  justify  them.  Let  the 
fact,  however,  be  briefly  examined.  The  act  of  supremacy 
(1st  Eliz.)  was  framed  "  for  putting  away  all  usurped  and 
foreign  powers  and  authorities;  and  for  disburthening  sub- 
jects of  divers  great  and  intolerable  charges  and  exactions," 
viz:  the  payment  of  annates,  or  first  fruits,  pope's  bulls,  in- 
dulgences, dispensations,  &c.  the  amount  of  which  was  in- 
credible. The  next  penal  law  against  popish  recusants, 
was  5th  Eliz.  cap.  1,  *'  because  of  the  dangers  by  the  fau- 
tors  of  the  usurped  power  of  the  see  of  Rome,  at  this  time 
grown  to  marvellous  outrage  and  licentious  boldness,  and 
now  requiring  more  sharp  restraint  and  correction  of  laws 
than  hitherto,"  &c.  This  was  followed  by  a  third,  (13th 
Eliz.  cap.  11,)  "  because  divers  seditious  and  evil  disposed 
people  were  minding,  very  fastidiously  and  unnaturally,  not 
only  to  bring  this  reahn  into  thraldom  and  subjection  to 
the  see  of  Rome,  but  also  to  estrange  and  alienate  the 
minds  and  hearts  of  her  majesty's  subjects  from  their  duti- 
ful obedience,  and  to  raise  and  stir  up  sedition  and  rebel" 
lion  within  this  realm,  to  the  disturbance  of  the  most  happy 
peace  thereof."  And  in  like  manner,  the  succeeding  re- 
straints and  penalties  of  her  reign,  and  the  same  may  be 

E  e 


326 

said  of  her  successors,  were  levelled,  not  against  the  here- 
tic or  schismatic,  but  against  the  conspirator  and  the  trai- 
tor ;  so  that  when  some  convicted  priests  and  their  pupils 
would  have  assumed  the  glory  of  suffering  for  their  religion, 
Cecil,  the  most  wise  and  honest  statesman  of  that  reign, 
published  a  tract,  proving  that  their  execution  was  not  for 
religion,  but  for  treason  only.*  It  cannot,  however,  be 
denied,  that  Elizabeth,  to  great  and  shining  talents,  united 
some  portion  of  her  father's  arbitrary  and  persecuting  spi- 
rit, and  that  a  few  of  her  subjects  were  put  to  death  on 
account  of  their  religious  opinions;  but  among  them  were 
no  Roman  Catholics.  The  conviction  of  these  was  ground- 
ed only  upon  treasonable  practices,  and  pardon  w^as  after- 
wards offered  to  them  all,  provided  they  would  give  the 
government  reasonable  security  for  tlieir  allegiance,  by  dis- 
claiminfT  the  foreio-n  and  hostile  jurisdiction  of  the  see  of 
Rome,  which,  in  those  days,  held  out  very  difll-rent  preten- 
sions from  the  mitigated  claims  of  the  present  times.  Of 
these,  however,  we  may  still  observe,  that  although  they 
have  received  the  sanction  of  so  many  Roman  Catliolic  uni- 
versities, yet  have  they  never  been  confirmed  by  the  pre- 
sent pontiff  or  his  predecessor;  and  should  their  successors 
ever  recover  the  former  influence  of  the  Roman  Church, 
there  can  be  little  doubt,  judging  from  past  events  and 
pretensions,  but  the  liberal  concessions  of  the  present  day 
will  be  stigmatized  with  her  disaj)probation  and  severest 
censures. f 


*The  reader  will  find  this  whole  subject  discussied  with  the  utmost  can- 
dour, and  illustrated  by  original  and  unquestionable  docnrnents,  in  "  A 
survey  of  the  modern  state  of  the  Church  of  Rome,"  &c.  addressed  to  the 
Rev.  Dr.  Butler,  Slc.  by  William  Hales,  D.  D.  Rector  of  Killesandra,  and 
late  fellow  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin.  Among  other  important  matters, 
the  reader  will  see  that  there  was  no  violation  of  the  famous  treaty  of 
Limerick. 

t  That  the  reader  may  judge  how  far  the  Irish  Roman  Catholics  agree 
with  these  foreign  universities,  let  him  peruse  the  following  passage  from 
the  letters  of  Dr.  O'Connor,  published  under  the  name  of  Columbanus : 


327 

But  the  period  of  her  despotism  is,  we  trust,  gone  by  for 
ever.  Little  more  than  a  shadow  is  left  of  this  domineer- 
ing power.  Stat  magni  nominis  umbra.  Mankind  is  be- 
come too  enlightened  to  submit  again  to  the  intolerable 
yoke,  which  "  neither  we  nor  our  fathers  were  able  to  bear." 
And  could  these  pages  contribute,  in  the  smallest  degree, 
to  this  truly  Christian  emancipation,  by  leading  to  a  revision 
of  some  of  the  most  obnoxious  tenets  and  usages  of  our  Ro- 
man Catholic  brethren,  the  time  and  attention  bestowed  on 
them  would  be  abundantly  rewarded.  The  religious  opin- 
ions of  many  Roman  Catholics,  especially  in  this  country, 
are,  we  trust,  undergoing  a  silent  reformation,  and  the 
"  dark  monsters  of  superstition  and  bigotry,"  as  was  remark- 
ed on  another  occasion,  "are  retreating  gradually  before  the 
light  of  genuine  religion  and  pJiilosophy.^^  In  proof  of 
this,  the  learned  Dr.  Hales  refers  us  (p.  203,)  to  the  formal 
answer  of  the  doctors  of  Sorbonne  to  the  consultation  of  the 
Roman  Catholics  of  Ireland,  recorded  by  Dr.  Butler. 
"  Compare,  also,"  says  he,  "  Veron's  French  rule  of  faith, 
subjoined  to  Hooke's  religionis  natiiralis,  et  revelatcB  prin- 
cipia,  with  the  canons  and  creed  of  Pius  IV.  and  the  dif- 
ference is  most  striking  and  satisfactory.  "  This  (rule  of 
Veron)  at  present, ^^  says  Mr.  Berington,  "  is  the  great  hinge 
on  which  our  whole  religion  turns."*  (p.  34,  refect,  x.)    If 

''  Notwithstanding  the  oath  of  allegiance,  by  which  Roman  Catholics  swear 
that  the  popo  has  no  power  over  the  temporalities  of  states,  yet  the  Irish 
titular  bishops  assembled  in  synod  at  Tullow,  so  lately  as  the  6th  of  June, 
1809,  extolled  afijnsf,  Iwhj,  amV tegilimale,  those  bulls  of  Pius  VII.  by  which 
he  has  absolved  all  Frenchmen  from  their  allegiance  to  the  Bourbons  ;  ex- 
pressly alienating,  not  only  the  ciown  of  France,  but  also  the  property  of  all 
French  loyalists,  secular  and  ecclesiastical;  and  hurling  down  from  their 
sees  above  a  hundred  French  bishops,  who  were  guilty  of  no  other  crime, 
than  that  of  a  conscientious  regard  to  their  oaths,  and  fidelity  to  their  prince." 
letters,  Part.  2,  p.  5. 

*  The  rule  is  this:  For  any  doctrine  to  become  an  article  of  Catholic  faith, 
two  things  are  conjointly  necessary ;  first,  that  it  be  revealed  by  God :  se- 
condly, that  it  be  proposed  by  the  Church" — i.  e.  by  the  Catholic  Church,  of 
^vhich  Protestant  Churches  are  branches. 


328 

we  peruse  his  "English  Roman  Catholic  principles,  in  re- 
ference to  God  and  the  country,"  drawn  up,  as  he  tells  us, 
in  the  reign  of  Charles  TI.  hut  retouched  by  hinnself,  we 
shall  find  many  of  the  exceptionable  tenets  of  the  Roman 
Church  rejected  or  explained  away.  O,  may  the  divine 
Head  of  the  Church  further  this  blessed  approximation  to 
each  other,  amonor  all  the  members  of  his  mystical  body, 
until  they  meet  together  "  in  the  unity  of  the  spirit,  in  the 
bond  of  peace,  and  in  righteousness  of  life."  But  this  will 
never  be  the  case,  unless  modern  apologists  for  the  Roman 
Church,  shall  deem  it  a  more  wise  and  Christian  measure, 
candidly  to  relinquish  some  untenable  posts,  than  by  round- 
ly taxing  Protestants  with  misrepresentation,  to  lay  them 
under  the  disagreeable  necessity,  of  exposing  the  tenets 
themselves,  in  all  their  weakness  and  futility,  to  the  public 
eye. 

And  now,  having  been  induced  from  a  sense  of  duty,  and 
the  solicitations  of  friendship,  partially  to  embark  once 
more  on  the  tide  of  controversy,  the  writer  of  this  reply 
assures  the  Rev.  gentleman  and  his  brethren,  that  it  is 
neither  his  wish  nor  intention  to  be  borne  down  the  stream, 
into  the  boundless  ocean  of  polemical  contention.  But,  as 
a  teacher  of  religious  truth,  it  must  ever  be  a  branch  of  his 
bounden  duty,  to  refute  the  fallacy  of  the  most  lofty  pre- 
tensions, when  they  presume  to  confine  forgiveness  of  sins, 
or,  in  other  words,  the  benefits  of  redemption,  within  the 
limits  of  one  particular  communion  ;  when  they  would 
shake  that  blessed  assurance  of  safety  and  acceptance, 
which  arises  from  faith  in  the  word  of  God  alone,  and  en- 
cumber practical  religion,  with  observances  unauthorized 
by  the  Scripture,  which  have  frequently  driven  the  bold 
offender  into  Atheism,  and  the  timid  into  despair.  In  a 
word,  as  a  watchman  stationed  by  Providence  on  the  walls 
of  Zion,  it  is  his  duty  to  mark  the  approach  of  every  error, 
and  to  repel  every  attack  upon  the  sanctuary,  whether  pro- 
ceeding from  open  enemies,  or  mistaken  friends,  and  to  do 


329 

this  with  weapons  drawn  exclusively  from  the  sacred  arse- 
nal itself;  namely,  "with  love  unfeigned  and  that  meek 
ness  of  wisdom,  which  is  from  above,  first  pure,  then  peace- 
able, gentle,  and  easy  to  be  entreated,  full  of  mercy,  and 
good  fruits,  without  partiality,  and  without  hypocrisy." 
James  iii.  17. 


E  e  2 


SOME 


REMARKS 


DR.   O'GALLAGHER'S    ^^  BRIEF   REPLY" 


TO 


DR.  WHARTON'S  <^  SHORT  ANSWER 


TO 


A  TRUE  EXPOSITION 


OF 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  CATHOLIC   CHURCH 


TOUCniXG  THE 


SACRAMENT  OF  PENANCE,"  &c. 


BY  CHARLES  H.  WHARTON,  D.  D. 
Rector  of  St.  Mary's  Church,  at  Burlington,  New-Jerse}\ 


NKW-YORK:   republished  by  DAVID  LONGWORTH,   1S17. 


PHILADELPHIA:   WILLIAM  STAVELV,   1834. 


SOME   REMARKS,   &c. 


It  was  sincerely  hoped  by  the  writer  of  the  following 
pa^es,  that  with  the  "  Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix  to  the 
Catholic  Question,'"  published  in  1813,  all  controversy  on 
this  subject  should  be  terminated.  The  reader  will  recol- 
lect, that  the  author  of  this  Appendix  took  occasion,  from 
the  issue  of  a  public  trial,  to  make  a  direct,  unprovoked, 
and  illiberal  attack  upon  the  doctrines  of  the  reformation  ; 
and  to  enforce  all  those  lofty  pretensions  of  his  Church, 
which  have  so  frequently  called  forth  solid  refutation  from 
the  learned,  and  smiles  of  pity  from  the  good  humoured 
Protestant.  In  the  present  instance, "with  whatever  super- 
cilious contempt,  and  coarse  phraseology,  the  Doctor  may 
affect  to  treat  the  answer  to  the  Appendix,  or  the  following 
hasty  and  cursory  remarks  ;  with  whatever  confident  ex- 
ultation he  may  style  them  absurd,  false,  impious,  and 
blasphemous,  (words  very  familiar  to  the  Rev.  Doctor,  and 
indicative  of  his  high  breeding,)  he  may  yet  be  an  object 
of  some  innocent  pleasantry  to  his  Protestant  friends. — 
The  very  dedication  of  his  book  to  one  of  our  most  ve- 
nerable and  illustrious  citizens,  who  has  always  been  a 
member  of  a  Protestant  Church,  seems,  at  first,  to  exhibit 
some  striking  features,  of  what  is  vulgarly  called  a  bull : 
it  is,  at  any  rate,  an  awkward  compliment  to  a  Protestant 
professor,  to  tell  him,  "  that  the  false  and  impiovs  conse- 
quences in  which  his  principles  necessarily  eventuate,  prove 
ihe  falsehood  ^x\(\  irreligion  of  the  principles  themselves." 
Leaving,  then,  this  matter  to  be  adjusted  between  the 
worthy  gentleman  and  the  Doctor,  I  proceed  to  make  a 
few  short  remarks  upon  his  reply — I  say  short,  for  if  the 
reader  will  be  pleased  to  revert  to  the  "  Answer  to  the 
Appendix,"  he  will   readily  become  acquainted  with  the 


334 

state  and  merits  of  the  controversy ;  and  will  there  disco- 
ver, I  trust,  an  anticipated  refutation  of  all  the  bold  and 
sophistical  assertions  in  which  the  Doctor's  reply  so  co- 
piously and  confidently  abounds.  It  would,  therefore,  be 
irksome,  as  well  as  unnecessary,  to  travel  again  over  the 
beaten  ground.  I  am  willing  still  to  rest  the  validity  of 
the  arguments  against  sacramental  confession,  or  the  sa- 
crament of  pena7ice,  (so  the  Doctor  would  have  it  called,) 
as  defined  by  the  council  of  Trent,  on  the  authorities  al- 
leged in  that  answer.*  The  Doctor  opens  his  battery 
against  the  Short  Answer,  by  the  discharge  of  a  syllogism, 
which  he  feels  confident  will  demolish  all  its  bulwarks. 
The  major,  or  first  jDroposition  of  this  syllogism,  no  Pro- 
testant will  deny;  viz.  "that  every  doctrine  of  religion, 
which  is  founded  in  the  Scripture,  and  has  been  acknow- 
ledged and  venerated  as  divine  by  the  Church,  in  the  de- 
crees of  her  councils,  the  declarations  of  her  bishops  and 
holy  fathers,  and  the  veneration  and  practice  of  the  faith- 
ful through  all  ages,  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles  to  the 
present  day,  must  necessarily  be  orthodox  and  of  divine  in- 
stitution. But  the  doctrine  of  the  sacrament  of  penance, 
and  the  necessity  of  confession  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins, 
is  founded  in  the  Scriptures,  &;c.  &;c  :  therefore,  the  doc- 
trine of  the  sacrament  of  penance,  and  of  the  necessity  of 
confession  for  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  is  orthodox  and  di- 
vine." 

"  To  answer  the  Exposition  or  the  Appendix,"  says  Dr. 
O'Gallaghcr,    "he,"    Dr.  W.    "should  have    solved    the 


*  Dr.  O'G.  is  very  angry  at  auricular  confession  being  called  a  sacrament ; 
and  yet,  he  says,  "  the  whole  procedure  of  the  sacrament,  often  goes  under 
the  appellation  of  confession,  in  the  catechisms,  instructions,  and  canons  of 
the  Church."  What  will  the  Doctor  say  to  one  of  the  popes,  who  calls  con- 
fession a  sacrament,  as  Bellarm.  informs  us :  (c.  ad  abolend.  de  haeret.)  This 
pope  was  Lucius  III.  "  Greater  accuracy,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  might  surely 
be  expected  li-om  a  doctor  of  divinity  ;"  what!  greater  accuracy  than  from 
a  poi)e  ? 


335 

above  syllogism,  which  constitutes  the  grand  argument,  and 
effectual  lever  of  the  whole  work :  and  to  solve  that  syl- 
logism, it  was  necessary  to  disprove  the  minor  proposition.'' 
Now,  by  what  confusion  of  ideas  could  the  Doctor  be  in- 
duced to  imagine,  that  this  minor  proposition  could  be  re- 
futed in  any  other  way,  than  by  denying  it  altogether  in 
the  first  instance,  and  then  proving  it  to  be  utterly  un- 
founded ?  This  was  done  by  showing,  1.  "  That  the  doc- 
trine of  auricular  confession,"  or  (to  avoid  a  mere  quibble 
raised  by  the  Doctor,)  the  doctrine  of  such  confession,  as 
constitutes  an  integral  act  or  part  of  a  divinely  instituted 
sacrament  of  the  Christian  Church,  called  the  sacrament 
of  penance,  has  no  foundation  in  Scripture.  2.  That  this 
doctrine  was  unknown  to  the  primitive  Church,  and  that 
previously  to  the  thirteenth  century  it  had  never  been  en- 
acted, 1  say  enacted  into  an  article  of  faith  and  indispen- 
sable discipline.  3.  That  neither  the  council  of  Lateran, 
nor  any  other  tribunal,  has  a  right  to  impose  such  a  griev- 
ous yoke  upon  the  faithful,  from  a  plea  to  infallibility,  as 
his  plea  is  altogether  unsupported  either  by  reason  or  re- 
velation. 

Novv^,  will  Dr.  O'G.  deny,  that  the  proof  of  these  three 
points  must  contain  the  refutation  of  his  minor  proposi- 
tion, and  invalidate  all  the  consequences  of  his  syllogism. 
He  acknowledges  that  the  "  first  of  these  positions  is  op- 
posed to  the  assertion  of  the  Exposition.  The  second,  he 
pronounces  partIyy*aZse  and  partly  absurd;''''  that  is,  it  is  a 
falsehood  to  assert  that  this  doctrine  was  unknown  to  the 
primitive  Church,  and  it  is  an  absurdity  to  assert  that  pre- 
viously to  the  thiiteenth  century,  it  had  never  been  enacted 
into  an  article  of  faith  and  indispensable  discipline.  The 
third  proposition,  he  styles  "a  mere  jargon  of  unmeaning 
words,  not  expressing,  or  refuting  any  principle  or  tenet  of 
Catholics."  From  the  226th  to  the  243d  page  of  the  Short 
Answer  to  the  Exposition.,  the  reader  will  find  ample  ma- 
terials for  refuting-  the  first  clause  of  the  Doctor's  formida- 


S36 

ble  minor,  and  all  Iha  sophisms,  plausible  and  irrelevant, 
with  which  he  labours  to  uphold  it.  lie  will  there  see  one 
probable  meaning  of  the  power  of  the  keys  as  conveyed  to 
St.  Peter,  and  the  other  Apostles :  (Matt.  xvi.  18.)  or,  at 
least,  he  will  I  trust  be  convinced,  that,  taken  in  any  sense, 
it  can  never  apply  to  sacramental  confession.  Passing  by, 
therefore,  the  whole  mass  of  sophistry,  which  the  Doctor 
has  accumulated  around  this  text,  his  unsuccessful  attack 
upon  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  and  Grenville  Sharp,  his  feeble 
endeavours  to  place  St.  Peter  at  the  foundation  of  the 
Christian  Church,  by  confounding  his  doctrines  with  his 
person,  and  in  express  contradiction  to  the  assertion  of  St. 
Paul,  (I  Cor.  iii.  11.)  "  That  other  foundation  can  no  man 
lay,  than  is  laid,  which  is  Christ  Jesus;''  passing  by,l  say, 
these  and.  some  other  particulars  altogether  immaterial, 
such  as  the  parade  of  Biblical  criticism  respecting  the 
word  oLKpoyceTTii^  which  the  learned  Parkhurst,  in  his  lexicon, 
composed  expressly  to  explain  all  the  words  of  the  New 
Testament,  interprets,  "  The  foundation  corner-stone," 
applied  figuratively  to  Christ ;  I  will  here  submit  to  the 
Doctor's  consideration,  a  few  remarks  upon  this  text,  from 
a  sermon  of  the  modern  theological  luminary.  Bishop 
Horseley,  which  may  probably  come  nearer  to  his  ideas  on 
this  subject,  than  what  he  has  met  with  in  Protestant  di- 
vines, although  manifestly  confirming  the  first  proposition 
of  the  Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix. 

*  The  learned  bishop  having  proved  to  the  entire  satis- 
faction of  his  own  mind,  and  probably  also  to  that  of  his 
readers,  *' that  St.  Peter  (Matt,  xvi.)  answered  only  for 
himself — that  the  blessing  he  obtained  was  for  himself 
singly,  the  reward  of  his  being  foremost  in  the  faith  which 
he  confessed  ;  that  to  be  the  carrier  of  the  keys  of  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  to  loose  and  bind  on  earth  in  any 
sense,  which   the    expressions  may   bear   in  this  passage, 

*  Bishop  Ilorscley's  Sermon,  xiii. 


S37 

Were  personal  distinctions  of  the  venerable  primate  of  the 
Apostolic  college,  appropriated  to  him  in  positive  and  ab- 
solute exclusion  of  all  other  persons  ;  in  exclusion  of  the 
Apostles,  his  contemporaries,  and  of  the  bishops  of  Rome 
his  successors,  concludes  by  asserting,  that  "  any  interpre- 
tation of  this  passage,  or  any  part  of  it,  founded  upon  a 
notion,  that  St.  Peter,  on  this  occasion,  spake,  or  was  spo- 
ken to,  as  the  representative  of  the  Apostles,  is  groundless 
and  erroneous."  Having  laid  this  foundation,  he  then  pro- 
ceeds to  fix  the  sense  of  the  first  promise  made  to  St. 
Peter:  "This,"  he  says,  "  consists  of  these  two  articles, 
that  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  iieaven  should  be  given  to 
him,  and  that  whatever  he  should  bind  or  loose  on  earth, 
should  be  bound  or  loosed  in  heaven." 

"  The  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  here  promised  to 
St.  Peter,  by  the  principles  we  have  laid  down  for  the  ex- 
position of  this  text,  must  be  something  quite  distinct  from 
that,  with  which  it  has  generally  been  confounded  ;  viz. 
the  power  of  the  remission  and  retention  of  sins,  conferred 
by  our  Lord  after  his  resurrection,  upon  the  Apostles  in 
general,  and  transmitted  through  them,  to  the  perpetual 
succession  of  the  priesthood.  This  is  the  discretionary 
power  lodged  in  the  priesthood,  of  dispensing  the  sacra- 
ments, and  of  granting  to  the  penitent,  and  refusing  to  the 
obdurate,  the  benefit  and  comfort  of  absolution.  The  ob- 
ject of  this  power,  is  the  individual  upon  whom  it  is  ex- 
ercised, according  to  the  particular  circumstances  of  each 
man's  case.  It  was  exercised  by  the  Apostles  in  many 
striking  instances  ;  it  is  exercised  now  by  every  priest, 
when  he  administers  or  withholds  the  sacraments  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord's  Supper,  or,  upon  just  grounds  pro- 
nounces, or  refuses  to  pronounce,  upon  an  individual  the 
sentence  of  absolution.  St.  Peter's  custody  of  the  keys 
was  quite  another  thing.  It  was  a  temporary,  not  a  per- 
petual authority ;  its  object  was  not  individuals,  but  the 

whole  human  race.     The  kingdom  of  heaven  upon  earth, 

F  f 


S38 

is  the  true  Church  of   God.     It  is   now,  therefore,   the 
Christian  Church :  formerly  the  Jewish  Church    was   that 
kingdom.     The  true  Church  is  represented  in  this  text,  as 
in  many  passages  of  holy  writ,  under  the  image  of  a  walled 
city,  to  be  entered  only  at  the  gates.     Under  the  Mosaic 
economy,  these  gates  were  shut,  and    particular  persons 
only  could   obtain   admittance  ;  Israelites  by  birth,   or  by 
legal  incorporation.     The  locks  of  these  gates   were   the  ' 
rites  of  the  Mosaic  law,  which  obstructed  the  entrance  of 
aliens.     But  after  our  Lord's  ascension,  and  the  descent  of 
the  Holy   Ghost,  the  keys  of  the  city   were  given  to  St. 
Peter  by  that  vision,  which  taught  him,  and  authorized  him 
to  teach  others,  that  all  distinctions  of  one  nation  from  ano- 
ther, were  at  an  end.     By  virtue   of  this  special  commis- 
sion, the   great  Apostle  applied   the  key,  pushed  back  the 
bolt  of  the  lock,  and  threw  the  gates  of  the  city  open  for 
the  admission  of  the  whole  Gentile  world,  in  the  instance 
of  Cornelius  and  his  family.     To  this,  and  to  this  only,  our 
Lord  prophetically  alludes,  when  he  promises  to  Peter  the 
custody  of  the  keys.     With  this,  the  second  article  of  the 
promise,  the  authority  to  loose  and  bind,  is  closely  connect- 
ed.    This  again   being,  by  virtue  of  our   rule  of  interpre- 
tation, peculiar  to  St.  Peter,  must  be  a  distinct  thing  from 
the  perpetual  standing  power  of  discipline,  conveyed  upon 
a  latter  occasion,  to  the  Church   in  general,  in   the  same 
fiopurative    terms.     St.   Peter  was  the  first    instrument  of 
Providence  in  dissolving  the  obligation  of  the  Mosaic  law 
in  the  ceremonial,  and    of  binding   it  in    the   moral   part. 
The  rescript,  indeed,  for  that  purpose,  was  drawn  by  St. 
James,  and  confirmed  by  the  authority   of  the   Apostles  in 
general,  under  the   direction  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  but  the 
Holy  Ghost  moved  the  Apostles  to  this  great  business  by 
the  suggestion  and  persuasion  of  St.  Peter,  as  we  read  in 
the  15th  chapter  of  the   Acts  of  the   Apostles:  and   this 
was   his  particular  commission  to   bind   and  loose.     The 
great  Apostle  fulfilled  his  commission  in  his  life-time.    He 


3S9 

applied  his  key — he  turned  back  the  lock,  he  loosed  and 
he  bound  :  the  gates  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  were 
thrown  open  ;  the  ceremonial  law  was  abrogated  ;  and  the 
successors  of  St.  Peter  in  the  see  of  Rome,  can  give 
neither  furtherance  nor  obstruction  to  the  business. "(a) 

And  now  let  the  impartial  reader  determine,  whether  or 
not  this  promise  to  St.  Peter,  has  any  reference  to  sacra- 
mental confession  and  absolution,  as  defined  by  the  council 
of  Trent,  to  a  power  of  unlocking,  or  binding  up  the  con- 
sciences of  men,  by  claiming  a  circumstantial  disclosure  of 
their  most- hidden  sins;  let  him  pronounce  upon  the  mo- 
desty of  the  Doctor  *'  in  declaring  an  appropriate  allusion 
of  the  very  learned  Dr.  Lightfoot  to  be  nonsense,'^^  in  string- 
ing on  it  affected  witticisms  totally  irrelevant,  and  very  un- 
becoming a  ^rave  divine  ,•  in  accusing  Protestant  theolo- 
gians of  a  wilful  perversion  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  roundly 
and  grossly  asserting  that  by  adopting  their  unanswerable 
arguments,  and  some  indignant  expressions  against  ground- 
less and  tyrannical  pretensions,  "the  author  of  the  Ansiver 
has  dearly  purchased  favour  by  the  merited  contempt  of 
learned,  honest,  and  honourable  men."  This  would  be  a 
dear  purchase,  indeed  ;  but  as  the  Doctor  probably  means 
by  learned,  honest,  and  honourable  men,  the  partisans  of  his 
own  bigoted  and  unfounded  opinions,  their  contempt,  in 
addition  to  that  of  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  can  weigh  but  lightly 
on  a  mind,  which  shares  it  with  such  Christian  champions 
as  Lightfoot  and  Clarke.  Perhaps  the  Doctor  has  met 
with  the  wise  maxim  of  Seneca,  "  ^quo  animo  audienda 
sunt  imperitorum  convicia,  et  ad  honesta  vadenti  con- 
temnendus  est  ipse  contemptus."  At  any  rate,  however, 
the  Doctor's  contempt  is  very  immaterial  to  the  present 
discussion. 

Men  tridy  learned,  honest,  and  honourable,  will  proba- 
bly pity  such  a  sentiment  in  a  Christian  divine,  while  they 

{a)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


S40 

look,  and  look  in  vain,  for  any  arguments  drawn  from  holy 
Scripture,  to  support  his  assertions.  If  men  of  this  descrip- 
tion will  turn  to  the  Short  Answer,  they  will  readily  per- 
ceive what  slender  foundations  are  laid  in  the  Scriptures, 
for  sacramental  confession.  The  stronofest  text  is  in  Matt, 
xvi.  18,  and  that  has  been  shown  to  be  a  baseless  pretext. 
Hard,  indeed,  has  the  Doctor  laboured  to  press  others  into 
his  service,  but  let  the  candid  reader  refer  to  the  discussion 
of  them  in  the  Answer  ;  and,  I  trust,  he  will  conclude,  that 
something  more  is  required  to  discover  in  holy  writ,  the 
most  sacred  and  lofty  pretensions  of  mortals,  than  wily  so- 
phisms and  strained  interpretations,  influenced  by  the  pre- 
judices of  preconceived  opinions,  and  never  daring  to  ques- 
tion them.  The  Scripture,  therefore,  affords  no  ground 
for  sacramental  confession.  The  proofs  of  this  position 
may  be  found  in  the  Short  Answer,  and  Dr.  O'Gallagher  is 
defied  to  refute  them. 

Before  we  proceed  to  vindicate  the  second  part  of  the 
Short  Answer,  it  will  be  necessary  to  notice  a  transient  re- 
ference to  Peter  Lombard,  a  celebrated  schoolman  of  the 
12th  century,  merely  to  show  that  in  his  day,  sacramental 
confession  was  not  deemed  a  scriptural  practice  of  indispen- 
sable obligation,  or  that  the  texts  alleged  by  the  exposition 
to  support  it,  were  not  deemed  conclusive.  It  is  really 
astonishing,  that  the  mention  of  this  old  divine,  merely  en 
passant,  should  have  put  the  Doctor's  bile  into  such  violent 
commotion.  He  cries  out  imposition,  imposture,  Protestant 
credulity,  &:c.  as  if  all  the  merits  of  his  cause  depended  on 
the  authority  of  Peter  Lombard.  But  whatwill  the  reader  say, 
when  he  sees  that  all  the  Doctor's  iire  evaporates  into 
smoke,  or  rather  into  invisible  gas  ?  It  was  asserted  in  the 
Short  Answer  to  the  Appendix,  "That  the  famous  master 
of  the  sentences,  delivers  the  doctrine  of  the  reformation 
respecting  confession,  and  contradicts  that  of  the  council 
of  Trent."  Now,  what  is  the  doctrine  of  the  reformation 
on  this  head  ?  Is  it  not,  as  Peter  Lombard  truly  says,  <'  that 


341 

God  only  remits  sins  and  retains  them,  and  yet  that  he  has 
granted  power  to  the  Church  to  hind  and  to  loosen  ;  but  he 
hinds  and  loosens  in  a  different  manner  from  the  Church. 
For  he  remits  sin  by  himself  only,  because  he  both  cleanses 
the  soul  from  the  inward  stain,  and  frees  her  from  the  debt 
of  eternal  death.  But  this  he  never  granted  to  priests,  to 
whom,  nevertheless,  he  gave  the  power  of  binding  and 
loosening,  that  is,  oi  declaring  men  either  bound  or  loosen- 
ed. Hence  our  Lord  first  restored  the  leper  to  health  by 
himself,  then  sent  him  to  the  priests,  that  by  their  judgment 
he  might  be  pronounced  to  be  cleansed."  The  power, 
then,  of  declaring  penitent  sinners  absolved  from  their 
sins,  is  that  which  the  master  of  sentences  delivers,  and  I 
believe  such  power  is  considered,  by  every  Protestant 
Church,  as  constituting  one  part  of  "  the  ministry  of  recon- 
ciliation," committed  to  it  by  Christ.  The  Doctor  has  not 
questioned  the  authenticity  of  this  passage.  Had  he  done 
so,  its  doctrine  might  have  been  easily  elucidated  by  cor- 
responding passages  from  many  of  the  fathers.  One  from 
Gregory  the  Great,  bishop  of  Rome  in  the  7th  century, 
shall  stand  in  place  of  them  all.  When  commenting  on 
the  5th  verse  of  the  3^d  Psalm,  "Thou  who  alone  sparest, 
who  alone  forgivest  sins,"  he  adds  this  paraphrase,  "  For 
who  can  forgive  sins  but  God  alone  1"  {Greg.  Expos.  2. 
Ps.  Pcenitent.)  Who,  indeed,  can  exercise  a  prerogative 
belonging  exclusively  to  the  Most  High;  or,  as  the  pro- 
phet says,  (Micah  vii.  18,)  "  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  thee, 
that  pardoneth  iniquity  ]"  Such  was  the  doctrine  of  the 
Christian  Church  before  the  councils  of  Lateran  and  Trent. 
Will  the  Doctor  say  that  this  is  still  the  doctrine  of  the 
Church  of  Rome?  Will  he  say  that  the  power  of  the  priest 
is  declaratory  only,  and  not  judicial  and  ahsolute  ?  Will 
he  subscribe  to  the  explicit  opinion  of  Peter  Lombard,  in 
another  passage  of  his  works,  "  that  in  remitting  or  retain- 
ing sins,  the  priests  of  the  Gospel,  have  that  right  and 

office,  which  the  legal  priests  had  of  old,  under  the  law  of 

rf2 


342 

ciiring  lepers?     These,  therefore,"  these  Christian  priests, 
"  forgive  sins  or  retain  them,  whilst  they  shoiu  and  declare 
that  they  are  forgiven  or  retained  by  God."     (Lib.  4.  sen- 
tent,  dist.  14./.)     Besides  all   this,  the  very  form  of  the 
sacrament  of  penance,  is  defined  to  consist  in  these  words, 
"  I  absolve  thee  from  thy  sins,"  and,  therefore,  they  con- 
stitute an  essential  part  of  it.     "  Forgiveness,"  says  Bellar- 
mine,  (de  paenit.  lib.  3.  cap.  2,)  "  is  denied  to  them  whom 
the  priest  will  not  forgive."     His  absolution  is  a  sacramen- 
tal act,  which  confers  grace  by  the  work  wrought^  that  is,  as 
this  their  most  learned  controvertist  expounds  it,  "  actively 
and  immediately,  and  instrumentally  effects  the  grace  of 
justification,"  in  such  as  receive  it.     "  Active  et  proxime, 
atque  instrumentaliter  efficit  gratiam  justificationis."*     In 
admitting  all  this  as  the  doctrine  of  his  Church,  the  Doctor 
still  maintains,  that  it  was  held  by  Peter  Lombard,  and  all 
other  orthodox  theologians,  who  lived  before  the  13th  cen- 
tury :  and  this  he  does,  forsooth,  because  he  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  if  they  held  it  not,  they  were  not  Catholic 
divines,  as  the  Church  can  never  innovate  in  matters  of 
faith.    Thus,  it  appears,  that  even  admitting  the  opinion  of 
Peter  Lombard,  appealed  to  by  the  Doctor,  viz.  that  confes- 
sion to  a  priest  is  necessary  to  salvation  ;  it  is  still  true, 
that  with  respect  to  the  power  of  the  priest,  in  this  particu- 
lar, the  doctrine  of  the  reformation  prevailed,  and  that  of 
the  council  of  Trent  was  unknown  before  the  13th  century. 
Again,  can  the  Doctor  demonstrate,  that  the  confession  to 
a  priest  deemed  necessary  by  Peter  Lombard,  is  the  same 
particular,  circumstantial,  private  confession,  enjoined  on 
all  Christians  by  the  most  bitter  anathemas  of  that  Church 
in  after  ages,  or  that  it  was  not  that  general,  humble,  and 
sincere  acknowledgment  of  sins,  accompanied  with  marks 
of  hearty  repentance,  still  practised  in  the  Protestant  Epis- 
copal Church,  and  other  Churches  of  Christendom  ?     Be 

*  Id.  in  sacram.  in  genere,  lib.  2.  cap.  1. 


343 

this,  however,  as  it  may,  the  opinion  of  Peter  Lombard  on 
this  subject,  is  nothing  more  than  that  of  a  private  divine, 
which  he  telis  us  was  controverted  by  many  doctors  of  his 
day.     Among  other  questions  which  he  propounds,  (lib.  4. 
senten.  dist.  17,)  he  asks,  "  whether  it  be  sufficient,  that  a 
man  confess  his  sins  to  God  alone,  or  whether  he  must  con- 
fess to  a  priest  ?"     He  then  mentions  a  variety  of  opinions 
upon  the  subject,  and  goes  on  to  say,  "  to  some  it  seemed 
to  suffice  if  confession  were  made  to  God  only,  without  the 
judgment  of  the  priest,  or  the  confession  of  the  Church  ; 
because  David  said,  '  I  will  confess  unto  the  Lord :'  he  says 
not  unto  a  priest,  and  yet  he  shows  that  his  sin  was  forgiven 
him."     "  On  these  points,"  he  continues,  (ihid.)  "  even  the 
learned  are  found  to  have  differed  in  their  opinions,  be- 
cause the  doctors  seemed  to  deliver  divers,  and  almost  con- 
trary judgments  therein  ;"  that  is  to  say,  the  ancient  doctors 
were  divided  in  their  opinions  concerning  auricular  sacra- 
mental confession,  and  although  Peter  Lombard  appeared 
obscurely  to  favour  it,  yet  his  idea  of  it  was  by  no  means 
such  as  afterwards  prevailed,  and  of  course,  his  authority, 
as  cited  in  the  Short  Answer,  remains  unimpaired.    I  have 
dwelt  more  fully  than  I  intended  on  this  accusation  of  the 
Doctor,  to  show  how  easily  his  sophistry  can  be  exposed, 
and  to  check  his  constant  propensity  to  cry  out  victory,  be- 
fore he  is  sure  that  he  has  conquered.     To  persons  not  la- 
bouring under  invincible  prejudices,  the  express  authority 
of  Thomas  Aquinas,  might  have  appeared  sufficient  to  set- 
tle this  point:  speaking  of  the  opinion  of  those  who  con- 
tended that  it  was  lawful  to  maintain  the  validity  of  con- 
fession to  God  alone,  he  says,  {in  4.  dist.  17,)  "  Magister  et 
Gratianues  hoc  pro  opinione  ponunt,  sed  nunc  post  deter- 
minationem  ecclesiae  sub  Innocentio  IIL  factam,  haeresis 
reputanda  est."     "  The  master  of  the  sentences  and  Gra- 
tian,  lay  down  this  as  an  opinion ;  but  now,  after  the  deter- 
mination of  the  Church  under  Innocent  IIL  it  is  to  be  re- 
puted heresy."     So  that  previously  to  that  determination, 


344 

during  twelve  centuries,  an  opinion  was  suffered  to  be  cur* 
rent  in  tlie  Church,  which  was  afterwards  proscribed  as 
pernicious  and  heretical  ;  a  striking  instance,  among  many 
others,  that  infallibility  is  a  very  inadequate  and  idle  plea, 
to  secure  the  faith  and  practice  of  Christians,  when  it  suf- 
fers them  to  lioat  with  so  much  uncertainty,  and  for  so 
many  centuries,  in  tlie  writings  of  theologians.  But,  says 
the  Doctor,  in  reply  to  the  second  part  of  the  Ansiver, 
namely,  "  that  the  testimony  of  the  ancient  fathers  does  not 
prove  sacramental  confession,"  "  the  first  member  is  false, 
the  other  ahsiirciy  To  prove  its  falsehood,  he  parades 
again  all  the  detached  passages  from  the  ancient  fathers, 
brought  forward  in  the  Appendix^  and  explained  in  the 
Answer.  He  adduces  many  others  equally  irrelevant, 
which  have  a  thousand  times  been  invalidated  and  refuted, 
as,  in  turning  to  the  Answer,  the  reader  will  readily  per- 
ceive ;  asj  also,  how  very  irksome  it  would  be  to  enter 
agafn  upon  their  refutation.  The  merits  of  the  question, 
in  this  particular,  are  confidently  rested  on  the  reasonings 
detailed  in  the  Answer,  from  the  31st  to  the  47ih  page. 
As  to  the  additional  texts  quoted  by  the  Doctor,  they  con- 
fer no  further  weight  on  those  in  the  Appendix;  and  all  of 
them,  of  course,  may  be  safely  disregarded,  as  unconnected 
with  the  Tridentine  doctrine  of  sacramental  confession. 
But  the  fact  is,  on  this,  as  on  many  other  points,  solitary 
passages  are  culled  both  from  the  Scriptures  and  the 
fathers,  which  have  little  or  no  bearing  on  the  subject 
under  discussion :  truths  are  contested  which  nobody  de- 
nies, while  the  real  difficulties  of  the  case  remain  unno- 
ticed. Great  compilers  by  profession,  the  Doctor  and  his 
associates  aim  at  astonishing  their  readers  by  an  accumula- 
tion of  citations,  and  a  pretended  tradition  foreign  to  the 
question  ;  which  few  persons  will  be  at  the  pains  of  exa- 
mining, and  then  decree  to  themselves  a  triumpii,  in  which 
they  are  the  only  applauders,  while  the  rest  of  the  world  is 
smiling  at  their  folly.     Like  the  theologians  of  the  council 


345 

of  Trent,  who,  in  order  to  prove  their  doctrine  of  confes- 
sion from  Scripture,  cited  every  passage  from  the  Old  and 
New  Testament,  where  the  word  I  confess,  or  confession 
occurs,  these  confident  gentlemen  adduce  from  the  ancient 
fathers  a  multiplicity  of  texts,  which  establish  about  as 
conclusively  the  divine  right  of  confession,  as  they  do  any 
other  dogma  to  which  they  might  wish  to  apply  them. 

But  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  the  Doctor  contends, 
clearly  evinces  that  "confession  (he  must  mean  sacramen- 
tal confession)  was  the  solemn  rite,  and  necessary  means 
inculcated  by  the  pastors,  and  practised  by  the  faithful  for 
obtaining  forgiveness  of  sins,  throughout  all  Christendom, 
from  the  earliest  ages."  The  reader  will  judge  from  what 
has  already  been  said,  what  he  is  to  think  of  tliis  asser- 
tion :  perhaps  however  he  will  pardon,  and  the  Doctor  will 
challenge,  a  little  further  illustration  of  this  matter.  I 
find  it  ready  to  my  hand  in  a  short  and  learned  disserta- 
tion of  my  venerable  friend,  the  present  bishop  of  the 
Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in  the  State  of  Pennsylvania, 
on  auricular  confession,  p.  233  of  his  lectures.  *'  The 
passage  recorded  (Acts  xix,  16.)  <  Many  that  believed 
came  and  confessed,  and  showed  their  deeds,'  means  no 
more,  than  that  their  application  to  the  Apostles  to  be  re- 
ceived to  Christian  communion,  was  accompanied  by  an 
acknowledgment  of  their  former  vicious  courses  :  a  matter 
not  uncommon  in  every  Protestant  communion  at  this  day. 
But  that  a  speci^Z  confession  of  all  past  miscarriages,  was 
not  a  prerequisite  of  initiation  into  the  Church  by  baptism, 
may  be  presumed  from  the  many  places,  in  which  it  might 
otherwise  have  been  expected  to  appear — as  in  the  bap- 
tism of  the  eunuch — in  that  of  Cornelius  and  his  house- 
hold— in  that  of  Jairus  and  his  household. 

"  On  the  present  subject,  the  works  of  the  early  fathers 
have  received  a  similar  treatment  with  the  holy  Scriptures; 
that  is,  the  absolute  duty  of  confession  to  God,  and  the 
occasional  one  of  opening  the  heart  to  the  ministers  of  bis 


346 

word,  has  been  confounded  with  the  indispensable  neces- 
sity of  the  latter,  as  a  condition  of  divine  pardon.  Thus, 
Tertullian  is  introduced,  as  to  the  purpose,  because  in  his 
treatise  concerning  patience,  among  many  animated  exhor- 
tations to  persons  fallen  from  the  peace  of  the  Church,  he 
counsels  them  to  implore,  on  bended  knees,  the  prayers  of 
the  presbyters,  and  of  all  others  who  were  dear  to  God. 
Cyprian  and  Origen  are  quoted  to  the  same  effect,  and  on 
similar  occasion  given.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  would 
be  easy  to  bring  passages  from  the  fathers — from  St. 
Chrysostom  in  particular,  in  various  passages  of  his  works 
— prescribing  confession  to  God  in  such  a  way  as  to  show, 
that  they  thought  no  other  necessary  to  the  pardon  of  sins. 
Even  in  the  legitimate  releasing  from  Church  censures, 
there  are  sundry  fiithers  who  maintain,  that  the  act  of  the 
minister  is  not  judicial,  but  declaratory,'^''  After  tracing 
plainly  the  origin  and  progress,  to  the  final  enacting  of  au- 
ricular confession  by  the  councils  of  Lateran  and  Trent, 
the  Bishop  proceeds,  (p.  235.)  "  It  would  be  easy  to  re- 
cite from  ancient  fathers,  exhortations  to  repentance  under 
a  variety  of  circumetanccis ;  and  expressed  in  such  forms, 
as  show  that  they  are  materially  defective,  if  auricular  con- 
fession, so  evidently  wanting  in  them,  were  thought  uni- 
versally a  duty.  There  shall  be  given  the  instance  of 
the  Roman  Clement — undoubtedly  the  person  referred  to 
(Philip,  iv.  S.)  as  having  "his  name  written  in  the  book  of 
life."  in  his  admirable  epistle  to  the  Corinthians,  written 
for  the  express  purpose  of  reclaiming  them  from  a  schism ; 
after  having  set  before  them  the  heinousness  of  their  of- 
fence, he  exhorts  them  to  beg  God's  forgiveness,  enlarging 
on  the  sentiment,  without  any  intimation  of  a  preparatory 
step  of  auricular  confession.  This,  if  required,  might  also 
have  been  pertinently  introduced  in  another  place,  where 
he  aduionishes  those  who  had  laid  the  first  foundation  of 
the  schism,  "  to  submit  themselves  to  their  presbyters,  and 
to  be  instructed  to  repentance,  bending  the  knees  of  their 


347 

hearts."     It  may  be  alleged  that  confession  was  an  appen* 
dage  to  the  repentance,  to  which  they  were  to  be  instruct- 
ed.    But  this  is  the  matter  in  question  ;  and  it  is  contended 
that  the  general  requisition  of  such  a  condition  woukl  na- 
turally have  introduced  the  mention  of  it  in  this  place. — 
The  Corinthians,  it  is  true,  in  the  very  return  from  their 
schism,  must  have  acknowledged  their  fault  therein.     But 
it  is  easy  to  perceive  the  difference  between  this,  and  the 
disclosure  of  the  heart,  implied  in  the  subject  under  con- 
sideration.    The  same  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the 
second  epistle  of  St.  Clement,  if  indeed  it  be  his ;  and  not 
rather,  as  some  think,  erroneously  ascribed  to  him,  although 
confessedly  very  ancient.    Be  this  as  it  may,  we  have  there 
an  earnest  exhortation  to  repentance,  without  a  word  of  the 
necessity  of  confession  to  a  minister.     But  there  is  no  rea- 
son to  confine  to  the  first  three  centuries,  what  is  here  af- 
firmed of  the  sense  of  the   fathers.     Those  of  the  fourth 
century  were  equally  strangers  to  the  doctrine  in  question." 
The  Bishop  then  quotes  from  St.  Chrysostom  an  explicit 
passage  in  proof  of  his  assertion,  which  neither  Dupin,  nor 
any  of  his  followers,  were  ever  able  to  answer,  and  which 
might  be  supported  by  a  crowd  of  other  texts  from  contem- 
porary writers,  which  those  brought  forwaid  in   the  Short 
Answer  render  it  unnecessary  to  allege,  and  which  would 
probably  rather  tire  the  patience  of  the  reader  than  add  to 
his  information.     Before  he  proceeds  to  quote  his  authori- 
ties from  the  fathers,  with  a  view  of  refuting  the  second 
part  of  the  Short  Ansiver,  the  Doctor  becomes  outrageously 
angry,  and  somewhat  abusive,  on  account  of  a  remark,  that 
"  the  fathers  frequently  express  themselves  on  the  subject 
of  confession,  and  many  other  points  of  discipline  existing 
in  their  day,  in  a  language  little  consistent  with  that  cool- 
ness and  accuracy,  which  should  always  accompany  polemi- 
cal disquisitions."     "What   an  argument  I"  exclaims  the 
doughty  Doctor,  "  he  now  attempts  to  criticise  the  style  of 
the  fathers."     Flimsy  apology  for  argument !     Horrid  im- 


348 

piety, nodoubt, and  ignoranceunparalleled,sho\ving,cIear]y, 
"  how  well,  in  the  estimation  of  every  man  of  letters,  the 
writer  was  qualified  to  censure  the  Cyprians,  the  Augus- 
tines,  d:c.  and  other  luminaries  of  the  Catholic  Church." 
If  this  is  not  finessing,  as  the  Doctor  calls  it;  if  this  is  not 
throwing,  not  "  handfuls,"  but  basketfuls,  "  of  dust  in  peo- 
ple's eyes,  and  giving  them  talk  instead  of  truths,"  the 
Doctor  will  be  puzzled  to  define  what  is  so.  Will  he  pre- 
tend to  affirm  that  the  ancient  fathers  were  always  cooZ  and 
accurate?  It  surely  can  be  only  when  measuring  their 
tempers  by  the  standard  of  his  own,  that  he  presumes  to 
hazard  such  an  assertion.  In  sincere  respect,  profound 
veneration,  and  heart-felt  gratitude  to  the  persons  and 
writings  of  the  ancient  fathers  of  the  Church,  the  writer  of 
these  pages,  will  not  yield  to  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  or  any  of 
his  associates.  He  appreciates  them  as  intrepid  cham- 
pions, faithful  witnesses,  enlightened  instructors,  and  glo- 
rious martyrs  of  our  holy  religion;  but  to  regard  either 
their  persons  or  writings  as  exempt  from  human  infirmities 
and  error,  to  hold  up  their  testimony  as  uniform  and  con- 
stant, except,  indeed,  in  the  fundamental  and.  leading  doc- 
trines of  Christianity,  is  either  to  be  unacquainted  with 
their  writings,  to  impose  upon  the  ignorant,  or  to  flatter  the 
credulous. (5)  "  One  does  not  know  which  to  admire  most," 
says  the  Doctor,  "the  falsehood  implied,  or  the  calumny 
expressed,"  in  the  assertion  that  the  "  fathers,  being  igno- 
rant of  any  divine  precept  respecting  sacramental  confes- 
sion, could  not  be  expected  to  enter  upon  its  discussion. 
The  fact  is,  no  controversy  on  this  point  existed  in  their 
day ;"  and  if  this  had  been  the  case,  it  is  not  to  be  doubt- 
ed, but  they  would  have  entered  into  it  with  as  much 
warmth,  detail,  and  accuracy,  as  are  to  be  found  in  mo- 
dern manuals,  casuists,  and  treatises  innumerable.  Let  the 
Doctor  produce  his  documents  of  this  kind  ;  let  him  show 

(6)  Sec  notes  at  the  end. 


S49 

us  from  history,  that  kings  and  queens,  and  other  great  per- 
sonages, had  their  stated  confessors ;  that  at  certain  sea« 
sons  the  Churches  were  crowded  with  those  who  repaired 
thither  for  confession  ;  that  plenary  indulgences  were  an- 
nexed to  this  exercise  ;  and  that  the  absolution  of  some 
crimes  was  reserved  to  the  bishop,  and  others  to  the  pope 
alone.     Let   him,  I  say,  favour  us  with  any  authentic  ac- 
counts of  the  primitive  Christians,  which  state  their  devo- 
tions in  this  particular,  to  resemble  those  of  the  present 
Roman  Church,  or  give  any  countenance  to  these  and  other 
practices  naturally  resulting  from   sacramental,  auricular 
confession,  and   I  will   admit  his  imputation  of  falsehood 
and  accusation  of  calumny  :  if  the  Doctor  cannot  do  this, 
then  these   vulgar  terms  must  recoil  upon   himself.     He 
would,   however,   do  well  to  remember,   that  to  take  for 
granted  the  testimony  of  the  fathers,  and  then  to  abuse  all 
those  who  reject  it,  neither  implies  nor  expresses  accuracy 
or  candour,     "  Bold   and  censured  opinions,"  he  tells  us, 
•'  have  no  weight  with  Catholic  divines  :"  or,  in  other  words, 
the  Roman  Church  has  only  to  censure  any  passages  in  the 
ancient   fathers   and   modern  divines,    that  clearly    make 
against  her;  and  such  passages  are  immediately  excluded 
from  their  testimony.     A  summary  method,  truly,  of  get- 
ting rid  of  difficulties,  which,  nevertheless,  runs  through 
the  Doctor's  whole  performance.     Presuming  on  the  infal* 
lible  authority  of  his  Church,  he  presents  this  attribute  as 
an   impenetrable  shield  against  every  hostile  weapon ;  he 
retires  into  this  impregnable  fortress,  after  all  its  outworks 
are  demolished.     But  to  this  last  asylum,  also,  we  will  en* 
deavour  to  follow  him,  even   through  the   many  and  intfi* 
cate  labyrinths,  with  which  he  labours  to  impede  our  way. 
Before  we  enter,   however,  on  this  subject,  which  consti- 
tutes the   third  part  of  the  Short  Answer^  we  entreat   the 
reader  to  consider  attentively  the  obvious  meaning  of  the 
texts  alleged  on  both  sides  of  the  question,  and  to  decide 
impartially  on  their  merits.     Let  him  discard  the  idea  of 


350 

any  existing  authority,  in  an  infallible  Church,  to  press 
some  of  them  into  her  service,  and  to  disown  others  as  er- 
roneous, and  then,  perhaps,  should  this  infallibility  be 
found  chimerical  and  groundless,  he  will  conclude  that  the 
author  of  the  Short  Answer  did  not  "  throw  away  any  spare 
ammunition,  in  strings  of  questions,  and  a  rant  of  interro- 
gation,'' which  the  Doctor  has  endeavoured  in  vain  to  an- 
swer, by  passing  them  by  "  as  the  common  resort  of  school- 
boys in  their  juvenile  compositions,  to  dazzle  the  eyes  of 
youthful  and  inconsiderate  readeis."  But  readers  of  a  dif- 
ferent description,  will  possibly  perceive  from  the  fore- 
going pages,  that  the  Doctor  also  has  made  some  proficien- 
cy in  ranting  :  and,  indeed,  two-thirds  of  his  book  consist 
of  nothing  else.  As  to  his  humour,  take  the  following 
specimen  :  it  was  said  in  the  Ansioer,  that  the  power  of  the 
keys,  or  the  authority  to  bind  and  to  loose,  to  forgive  and 
retain  sins,  given  by  Christ  to  his  Apostles,  &c.  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  that  exercised  by  the  Romish  priests,  in  the  sa- 
crament of  penance  ;  and  that,  consequently,  the  retention 
of  sins  is  no  part  of  this  sacrament ;  of  course,  that  this 
sacrament  is  not  founded  in  the  words  of  Christ's  commis- 
sion. This  was  all  that  was  meant,  and  all  that  was  said; 
but,  "  as  well,"  exclaims  the  Doctor,  "  might  he  say,  refus- 
ing to  open  a  door,  is  not  opening  it :  therefore,  there  is  no 
such  thing  as  opening  a  door."  Very  witty,  indeed  !  as  if 
the  power,  or  commission  of  opening  and  shutting  a  door, 
could  be  completely  exercised  by  opening  it  alone.  One 
word  more  on  a  verbal  quibble  of  the  Doctor,  and  this  part 
of  the  subject  shall  be  dismissed.  In  the  Answer  it  was 
asserted,  that  "  the  doctrine  of  sacramental  confession  was 
unknown  to  the  primitive  Church,  and  that  previous  to  the 
thirteenth  century  it  had  never  been  enacted  into  an  ar- 
ticle of  faith,  and  indispensable  discipline.''  Throughout 
the  preceding  pages,  and  those  of  the  Answer,  the  proofs 
of  these  propositions  will  readily  be  found,  and  to  them  the 
reader  is  again  confidently  referred.     But  the  word  enact, 


351 

it  seems,  excites  the  Doctor's  indignation,  and  absurdity 
and  imposture  are  dealt  out  with  great  liberality  upon  his 
opponents;  and  this,  forsooth,  because  "the  Church  never 
creates  a  new  article  of  faith  ;"  but  merely  "  declares  and 
defines  the  ever-subsisting  faith, once  delivered  to  the  saints, 
and  always  retained  and  venerated  by  the  body  of  the  faith- 
ful." In  other  words,  she  will  not  acknowledge  that  she 
has  ever  erred,  or  that  her  doctrines  have  not  always  been 
the  same  as  they  are  at  this  day.  Here  is  begging  the  very 
point  in  question  ;  for  Protestants  contend  and  prove  that, 
by  enacting  new  articles  of  faith,  she  has  erred  from  the 
truth.  Was  it  not  many  ages  after  the  Christian  era,  that 
the  sacrament  of  penance  was  made  one  of  the  seven  1 
Was  not  a  practice,  deemed  previously  optional,  enacted 
into  a  law  by  the  Lateran  council  ?  However,  if  the  Doc- 
tor will  curb  his  petulance  and  compose  his  temper,  for  the 
sake  of  such  a  benefit,  we  will  abandon  the  obnoxious 
word,  and  agree  that  to  declare  a  new  article  of  faith,  is  the 
same  as  to  enact  it ;  and  he  will  not  refuse  to  admit  the  de- 
claration of  Thomas  Aquinas,  that  "  what  was  matter  of 
opinion  before  the  council  of  Lateran,  became  heresy  after 
it ;"  and  that,  of  course,  a  new  article  was  added  to  the 
belief  of  his  Church. 

But,  no,  says  the  Doctor,  my  Church  is  infallible,  she 
cannot  err,  she  is  secured  from  every  possibility  of  mistake, 
so  that  all  her  declarations  on  matters  of  faith  are  irrefraga- 
ble and  binding,  and  without  admitting  them,  there  is  no 
salvation,(c) — so  at  least  say  all  her  confessions  of  faith. 
On  her  declaration,  therefore,  we  are  bound  to  receive  and 
practise  her  doctrine  of  sacramental  confession  ;  and  this 
declaration  is  manifestly  founded  on  her  claim  to  infallibi- 
lity. Now,  it  was  asserted  in  the  third  part  of  the  Short 
Anstcer,  that  "  neither  the  councils  of  Lateran  nor  of  Trent, 
nor  any  other  earthly  tribunal,  had,  or  has,  a  right  to  impose 

(c)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


352 

such  a  grievous  yoke  as  auricular  confession  upon  the  faith- 
ful, from  a  plea  to  infallibility;  this  plea  being  altogether 
unsupported  either  by  reason  or  revelation." 

This  third  proposition^  the  Doctor  styles  "  a  mere  jar- 
gon of  unmeaning  words,  not  expressing  or  refuting  (he 
probably  meant  contradicting)  any  principle  or  tenets  of 
Catholics."  "  It  is  a  mere  jagon  of  unmeaning  words," 
says  the  Doctor,  ''  to  assert  that  no  authority  upon  earth 
can  bind  on  the  faithful  such  a  grievous  yoke  as  auricular 
confession,  from  a  plea  to  infallibility  :"  and  yet  this  is  the 
very  plea  on  which  it  is  done  ;  on  what  other  plea  could  it 
be  done  ?  What  but  the  claim  of  being  an  unerring  guide 
in  matters  of  faith,  arising  from  a  supposed  right  to  fix  the 
sense  of  the  Scriptures,  and  to  define  traditions  equally  im- 
perative, could  have  emboldened  the  Lateran  council  to 
decree,  (cap.  21,)  "  Omnis  utriusque  sexus  fidelis,"  and 
"  Let  every  one  of  the  faithful  of  either  sex,  being  come  to 
the  years  of  discretion,  by  him,  or  herself  alone,  once  in 
the  year  at  least,  faithfully  confess  their  sins  to  their  own 
priest,  &;c.  Otherwise,  let  them,  when  living,  be  excluded 
from  the  Church,  and,  when  dead,  be  deprived  of  Christian 
burial."  Nothing  surely  but  a  consciousness  of  an  exemp- 
tion from  error,  or  the  plea  of  infallibility,  could  induce 
the  council  to  enact,  or  the  faithful  to  obey,  such  an  out- 
rageous decree.  The  author  of  the  Appendix,  more  logi- 
cal, or  more  candid  than  the  Doctor,  saw  this  subject  in  its 
proper  light,  and,  therefore,  declares  without  hesitation, 
*'  that  his  fourth  and  last  argument  in  favour  of  the  divine 
institution  of  confession,  is  drawn  from  the  infallibility  of 
the  Church,  which  has  repeatedly  and  solemnly  declared 
this  truth  in  her  general  councils,  and  emphatically  taught 
the  same  in  every  age."  On  the  plea  of  infallibility, 
therefore,  this  doctrine  has  been  declared,  and  taught,  and 
enforced  by  the  Roman  Church.  "This  plea,"  says  the 
Answer,  "  is  unsupported  either  by  reason  or  revelation  :" 
and,  therefore,  with  respect  to  sacramental  confession,  is 


853 

totally  null  and  void.  So  much  for  the  Doctor's  "  mere 
jargon  of  unmeaning  words,"  and  his  bold  assertion,  that 
the  proposition  "  does  not  contradict  any  tenet  of  his 
Church." 

We  proceed  now  to  the  Doctor's  animadversions  on  the 
third  part  of  the  Answer  to  the  Appendix.  And  we  may 
begin  by  observing,  that  the  refutation  of  each  of  his  argu- 
ments and  sophisms,  has  been  anticipated  in  that  Answer. 
Of  this,  the  reader  is  invited  to  judge,  and  he  is  moreover, 
entreated  kindly  to  overlook  any  repetitions,  which  must 
necessarily  occur  in  accompanying  the  Doctor  over  the 
very  same  ground  which  is  traversed  by  the  Appendix,  or 
through  any  anomalous  courses  peculiar  to  himself.  The 
texts  on  which  the  Doctor  grounds  the  infallibility  of  his 
Church,  are  noticed  and  explained  in  the  Answer,  from  the 
280th  to  the  289tli  page  ;  and  although  they  have  supplied 
materials  for  many  a  ponderous  volume,  carry  with  them  a 
meaning  so  simple  and  obvious,  that  to  an  unprejudiced 
mind  they  need  no  prolix  discussion.  The  first  that  occurs 
in  the  Answer,  (Matt.  xvi.  18,)  "  The  gates  of  hell  shall 
not  prevail  against  the  Church,"  is  that,  on  which  the  Ro- 
man Catholic  writers  lay  the  greatest  stress,  and  shall, 
therefore,  receive,  exclusively,  some  additional  attention. 
I  find  a  lucid  and  unanswerable  explanation  of  this  text,  in 
a  sermon  of  the  profound  and  accurate  Bishop  Horseley, 
mentioned  above.  "  On  these  words,"  says  the  learned 
prelate,  "that  '  the  gates  of  hell,'  dtc— the  time  compels 
me  to  be  brief,  nor  is  there  need  I  should  be  long.  In  the 
present  state  of  sacred  literature,  it  were  an  affront  to  this 
assembly,*  to  go  about  to  prove  that  the  expression  of  *  the 
gates  of  hell,'  describes  the  invisible  mansion  of  departed 
souls,  with  allusion  to  the  sepulchres  of  the  Jews  and  other 
eastern  nations,  under  the  image  of  a  place  secured  by 
barricadoed  gates,  through  which  there  is  no  escape,  by 

*  The  Society  for  the  propagation  of  the  Gospel  in  foreign  parts. 
Gg3 


554 

natural  means,  to  those  who  have  once  been  compelled  to 
enter.  Promising  that  these  gates  shall  not  prevail  against 
his  Church,  our  Lord  promises  not  only  perpetuity  to  the 
Church,  to  the  last  moment  of  the  world's  existence,  not- 
withstanding the  successive  mortality  of  all  its  members  in 
all  ages  ;  but,  what  is  much  more,  a  final  triumph  over  the 
power  of  the  grave.  Firmly  as  the  gates  of  Hades  may  be 
barred,  they  shall  have  no  power  to  confine  his  departed 
saints,  when  the  last  trump  shall  sound,  and  the  voice  of 
the  archangel  shall  thunder  through  the  deep."  "  The 
promise  of  stability,  in  the  text,  is  to  the  Church  Catholic: 
it  affords  no  security  to  any  particular  Church,  if  her  faith, 
or  her  works  should  not  be  found  perfect  before  God.  The 
time  shall  never  be,  when  a  true  Church  of  God  shall  not 
be  somewhere  subsisting  on  the  earth  ;  but  any  individual 
Church,  if  she  fall  from  her  first  love,  may  sink  in  ruins; 
of  this,  history  furnishes  but  too  abundant  proof,  in  the  ex- 
amples of  Churches,  once  illustrious,  planted  by  the  Apos- 
tles, watered  by  the  blood  of  the  first  saints  and  martyrs, 
which  are  now  no  more.  Where  are  now  the  seven  Churches 
of  Asia,  whoso  praise  is  in  the  Apocalypse?  Where  shall 
we  now  find  the  successors  of  tliosc  earliest  archbishops 
©nee  stars  in  the  Son  of  Man's  right  hand  1  Where  are 
those  boasted  seals  of  Paul's  Apostleship,  the  Churches  of 
Corinth  and  Philippi?  Where  are  the  Churches  of  Jeru- 
salem and  Alexandria?"  As  these  ancient  Churches,  so 
those  of  our  day  may  be  abandoned  and  disappear,  and  in 
some  distant  quarter  of  the  globe,  now  lying  in  the  gloom 
of  superstition  or  idolatry,  when  become  enlightened  with 
the  rays  of  the  Gospel,  the  question  may  be  asked,  where 
now  is  the  Church  of  England  ;  where  now  is  the  Church 
of  Rome?  "  But,"  says  the  Doctor,  "this  latter  supposi- 
tion can  never  be  realized,  because  the  gates  of  hell  can 
never  prevail  against  the  Catholic  Church,  which  is  the 
Roman  Church,"  So  thai,  in  the  idea  of  the  Doctor,  a 
particular  and  universal  Church  is  the  same  thing.     But 


355 

let  that  pass.  "  With  any  error  in  doctrine,"  says  he, 
"  there  could  be  no  Church  at  all ;  for  all  errors  destroy 
the  Church."  This,  indeed,  is  very  high  ground,  and  the 
Doctor  maintains  it  with  a  train  of  sophistry  seldom  sur- 
passed. He  assumes  all  along,  that  the  Catholic  Church 
and  the  Roman  Church,  are  synonymous  appellations. 
Now,  this  is  the  very  point  in  question,  and  the  difficulty 
is  to  prove  it ;  "  hie  labor,  hoc  opus  est."  The  Catholic 
Church  is,  indeed,  the  pillar  and  ground  of  truth;  and, 
therefore,  by  teaching  any  doctrine  subversive  of,  or  con- 
trary to,  the  Christian  faith,  she  would  cease  to  be  a  Chris- 
tian Church.  As  this  is  never  to  be  the  case,  so  the  teach- 
ing of  such  doctrine  can  never  take  place.  But  can  any 
individual  Church  claim,  from  these  premises,  an  exemp- 
tion from  error  ?  Protestants  have  proved  that  the  Roman 
Church  has  erred  :  and,  if  so,  she  cannot  surely  substantiate 
such  a  pretension.  The  whole  of  the  controversy,  indeed, 
turns  upon  this  point,  and,  until  it  is  settled,  the  contending 
parties  must  remain  as  they  are.  It  is  only  from  a  com- 
prehensive view  of  all  the  points  in  litigation,  that  the  mat- 
ter can  be  determined  :  but  when  the  Doctor  asserts,  that, 
"  in  admitting  a  Church  to  be  subject  to  error,  some  men, 
(that  is,  the  whole  body  of  Protestants,)  "  pretend  to  indul- 
gence and  liberality,  and  that  this  is  an  impious  indul- 
gence /"  he  betrays  a  spirit  very  unbecoming  his  character. 
Protestants  affirm,  and  have  repeatedly  proved,  that  the 
doctrines  of  religion  generally  maintained  by  all  Christian 
Churches,  in  all  places,  and  at  all  times,  constituted  the 
code  of  Christian  faith  and  morals  ;  and  that  the  great  body 
of  her  pastors  should  always  teach,  and  the  great  body  of 
the  faithful  should  always  admit,  these  doctrines,  in  spite 
of  all  the  attacks  of  the  infernal  powers.  Let  a  period  be 
pointed  out,  when  God  was  left  without  a  witness,  when  an 
error  prevailed  universally  through  Christendom,  subver- 
sive of  some  fundamental  tenet,  and  it  will  be  acknowledged 
that  the  Church  ceased   to  exist.     Against  errors,  how- 


356 

ever,  of  minor  importance,  errors  neither  damnable  nor  de- 
structive, no  security  has  been  given,  and  none  is  necessary. 
Previously  to  the  coming  of  Christ,  the  Jewish  Church  vpas 
the  Church  of  God  ;  it  was  instituted  and  taught  by  God 
himself  through  his  servant  Moses;  his  Spirit  was  always 
ready  to  lead  this  Church  into  all  truth,  and  high  priests, 
priests,  and  Levites,  were  appointed  to  guard  the  sacred 
deposit  of  its  faith — the  law  and  the  prophets ;  yet,  who 
will  say  the  Jewish  Church  never  erred?  Perpetuity,  indeed, 
was  not  promised  to  this  Church,  yet  it  was  founded,  and, 
while  it  existed,  was  guided  by  the  Spirit  of  God.     When, 
however,  by  the  exercise  of  that  freedom  of  the  will,  which 
is  essential  both  to  individuals  and  collective  bodies,  and 
which  was  not  to  be  controlled  by  any  special  interference 
of  Providence,  it  afterwards  fell  into  gross  idolatry  and  pal- 
pable superstitions ;  when  one  great  portion  of  this  Church 
denied  ihe  resurrection  of  the  dead,  and  our  Saviour  cautions 
his  disciples  against  the  doctrines  of  the  other,  (Luke  xii. 
S,)  who  taught  for  doctrines  the  commandment  of  men, 
(Mark  vii.  7,)  and  rejected  the  commandment  of  God,  that 
they  might  keep  their  own  traditions  ;  (v.  9,)  then  it  was, 
that  the  Talmud,  having  defaced,  and,  in  some  points,  in- 
validated essential  points  of  the  law,  the  Jewish  Church 
was  abolished.     And  had  not  infinite  wisdom  decreed,  that 
of  the  kingdom,  or  Church  of  Christ,  there  should  be  no 
end,  and  that  he  would  support  it  to  the  consummation  of 
the   world,  the  hay  and  stubble,  which   have  occasionally 
been   heaped    upon   its    foundations,  would   probably  ere 
now,  have  so  far  obscured  them,  that  we  should  look  in 
vain  for  this  blessed  society.     But  thanks  be  to  God,  these 
foundations  are  still  conspicuous  and  evident ;  the  flimsy 
superstructures,  at  times  erected  upon  them,  have  been 
thrown  down  by  the  strong  hand  of  the  Almighty  ;  and  at 
this  day,  as  in  that  in  which  they  were  first  laid,  they  aflford 
to  every  believer  solid  security,  and  the  assurance  which 
is   of  faith.     These   foundations   are   the   essential   doc- 


357 

trines  of  the  Gospel,  and  therefore  styled  fundamental. 
The  Doctor  denies  that  there  are  any  doctrines  of  this  de- 
scription, (p.  109,)  and  qualifies  such  a  notion,  as  false  and 
absurd.  The  reader,  perhaps,  with  the  Doctor's  leave,  may 
presume  to  think  otherwise.  What !  are  there  then  no 
doctrines  that  lie  at  the  foundations  of  religion  ?  Are  all 
of  equal  intrinsic  value,  importance,  and  weight?  Truth, 
indeed,  as  such,  is  incapable  of  augmentation,  and  one 
truth  is  as  great  as  another.  It  is  equally  true,  that  Isaac 
begat  Jacob,  as  that  Christ  was  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary  ; 
but  will  any  man  of  sense,  who  dares  to  think  for  himself, 
pronounce  these  truths  to  be  equally  essential  to  Christiani- 
ty ?  Can,  I  say,  any  man,  with  his  mind  unshackled  by 
prejudice,  education  and  sophistry,  really  believe,  that  the 
profession  of  faith  enjoined  by  Pope  Pius  IV.  has  added 
nothing  to  the  foundations  of  Christian  faith,  contained  in 
the  Apostolic  and  Nicene  creeds  ?  Will  he  admit  "  that 
the  doctrine  o( purgatory,  o(  the  invocation  of  saints,  of  the 
veneration  of  their  relics,  are  as  fundamental  articles  of  a 
Christian's  belief,  as  the  mystery  of  the  ever  blessed  Tri- 
nity ;  that  the  images  of  Christ,  of  the  mother  of  God,  ever 
virgin,  and  also  of  other  saints,  ought  to  be  had  and  retain- 
ed, and  that  due  honour  and  veneration  is  to  be  given 
them  ?"  (See  Pope  Pius'  Creed.)  Will  he,  I  say,  believe 
that  these  truths  are  as  fundamental,  as  essential  to  the 
existence  of  the  Christian  Church,  as  that  of  Adam's  fall ; 
of  the  incarnation  and  death,  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
of  Jesus  Christ ;  of  the  descent  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  of  a 
state  of  future  retribution,  and  of  the  duty  of  worshipping 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ?  Well  may  we  say  with  the 
Doctor,  "  what  does  this  jargon  mean  ?"  What,  indeed, 
does  it  mean,  but  to  bewilder  the  minds  and  consciences  of 
Christians,  and  when  they  could  no  longer  relish  sound 
doctrine,  to  turn  them  to  fables,  often  as  oppressive  in  their 
tendency,  as  unfounded  in  their  origin?     Now,  if  some 


358 

truths  only  he  fundamental,  of  course,  some  errors  only  can 
partake  of  this  denomination. 

These  errors  may  deform,  but  not  destroy  the  Church. 
She  was,  indeed,  to  be  led  into  all  truth  necessarily  con- 
nected with  the  ends  of  her  establishment,  but  no  promise 
is  made  her,  that,  besides  such  truths,  none  of  her  particu- 
lar branches  should  ever  teach  and  countenance  errors  of 
any  kind.  But  the  Doctor  will  say,  with  Pope  Pius,  that 
these  doctrines,  which  Protestants  style  errors,  constitute 
"  the  true  Catholic  faith,  without  which  no  one  can  be 
saved ;''  therefore  they  are  fundamental.  This  I  know  is 
said,  and  rung  perpetually  in  the  ears  of  Roman  Catholics. 
But  by  whom  is  it  said — by  Jesus  Christ,  their  Lord  and 
their  God,  or  by  those  who,  like  Levi's  sons,  have  taken  too 
much  upon  them  ?  "  Rash  expositors  of  points  of  doubtful 
disputation,"  (says  the  late  liberal  and  worthy  bishop  of 
Llandaff,  Theol.  Tracts^)  "intolerant  fabricators  of  meta- 
physical creeds  and  incongruous  systems  of  theology  !  Do 
you  undertake  to  measure  the  extent  of  any  man's  under- 
standing, except  your  own,  to  estimate  the  strength  and 
origin  of  his  habits  of  thinking  ,•  to  appreciate  his  merit  or 
demerit  in  the  use  of  the  talents  which  God  has  given  him; 
so  as  unerringly  to  pronounce  that  the  belief  of  this  or  that 
doctrine,  is  necessary  to  his  salvation  ?  It  is,  undoubtedly, 
necessary  to  yours,  if  you  are  persuaded  that  it  comes  from 
God  ;  but  you  take  too  much  upon  you,  when  you  erect 
yourself  into  an  infallible  judge  of  truth  and  falsehood. 
We,  as  Christians,  arc  under  no  uncertainty  as  to  the  being 
of  a  God  ;  as  to  his  moral  government  of  the  world  ;  as  to  the 
terms  on  which  sinners  may  be  reconciled  to  him ;  as  to  "  the 
redemption  which  is  in  Jesus  Christ ;  as  to  the  resurrection 
from  the  dead  ;  as  to  a  future  state  of  retribution,  &c.;  but 
there  are  other  subjects  on  which  the  academicorum  '^-ojw, 
may  be  admitted,  I  apprehend,  without  injuring  the  foun- 
dations of  our  religion."  But,  unhappily  for  the  peace  of 
the  Church,  the  lust  of  dominion,  and  the  rage  for  dogma- 


359 

tizing,  has  identified  with  these  sacred  foundations  other 
extraneous  materials,  as  the  Spirit  of  God  had  explicitly 
foretold,  and  thus  held  them  out  as  equally  sacred  and  im- 
portant.    This  subject  might  be  prosecuted  to  any  given 
length,  and  fresh  arguments  would  continually  spring  up  to 
show  the  slender  grounds  of  the  Doctor's  triumph  in  this 
particular.    The  mazes  of  logical  reasoning,  with  which  he 
endeavours  to  convince  his  readers,  will  serve  only  to  be- 
wilder them,  and  keep  down  the  suggestions  of  common 
sense  to  untutored  minds.     To  instance  this  in  one  short 
sentence.     He  says,  "  The  Church  that  would  admit  and 
teach  an  error  in  faith,  would  violate   the  whole  faith." 
The  Church  that  would  admit  and  teach  such  an  error, 
knowingly  and  willingly,  and  if  such  an  error  were  subver- 
sive of  the  Christian  religion,  would,  certainly,  violate  the 
whole  faith,  and  cease  to  be  a  Church.    But  here  the  ques- 
tion   returns,  whether  such  an   error  be  fundamental   or 
otherwise  ;  for  it  is  from  such  only  that  exemption  is  pro- 
mised in  the  Scriptures.     If  the  reader  wishes  to  obtain 
further  satisfaction  on  this  point,  let  him  turn  to  the  third 
chapter  of  that  elegant  and  acute  reasoner.  Dr.  Chilling- 
worth,  where  the  distinction  between  fundamentals  and  non- 
fundamentals,    is   logically    and     irrefragably    established. 
Perhaps,  however,   before   this  subject  is  finally  dismiss- 
ed, the  following  passage  from  the  3d  ses.  of  the  council  of 
Trent,  may  stagger  the  Doctor's  confidence,  or,  at  any  rate, 
puzzle  him  to  defend  its  consistency  :  "  Symbolum  fidei, 
quo  sancta  ecclesia  Romana  utitur,  tanquam  principium 
illud,  in  quo  omnes,  qui  fidem  Christi  profitentur,  necessa- 
rio  conveniunt,  ac  firmamentum  firmum  et  unicum  contra 
quod  portaj  inferi  nunquam  praevalebunt,  totidem  verbis 
quibus  in  omnibus  ecclesiis  legitur,  exprimendum  esse  cen- 
suit."    "  The  council  has  declared,  that  the  symbol  of  faith 
used  in  the  holy  Roman  Church,  as  that  principle  in  which 
all  who  profess  the  faith  of  Christ  necessarily  agree,  and 
that  firm  and  only  foundation^  against  which  the  gates  of 


360 

hell  shall  never  prevail,  shall  be  expressed  in  the  same 
tvords  in  which  it  is  read  in  all  the  Churches.''(rf)  And 
now  let  the  Doctor  exclaim,  as  dogmatically  as  he  pleases, 
"  away,  then,  with  these  fictions  of  fundamental  and  non- 
fundamental  faith  ;  (doctrines,  he  should  have  said  ;)  "  such 
language  being  calculated  to  amuse  and  mislead  the  credu- 
lous or  interested  abettors  of  particular  systems."  Let  him 
indulge  himself  in  his  usual  style  of  dictatorial  importance  ; 
enlightened  Protestants  will  smile  at  his  presumption,  and 
still  regard  his  realities  as  fictions,  and  their  fictions  as  so- 
lemn realities. 

We  proceed,  next,  to  the  third  proposition  collected  from 
the  Answer^  and  which  is  styled  not  on\y  false,  but  proved 
to  be  so,  by  experience.  It  is  this  :  "  That  thQ-Church  may 
always  secure  herself  from  capital  errors,  by  taking  for  her 
guide  the  light  of  clear  revelations,  and  the  evidence  of 
reason."  "  No,"  says  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  "  this  isfalse  ;  the 
light  of  clear  revelation  and  the  evidence  of  reason,  are 
not  sufficient  to  secure,  nor  ever  did  secure  the  Church 
from  capital  errors."  Here,  indeed,  is  a  most  extraordinary 
assertion.  The  Doctor  is  surely  not  aware  into  wh-at  a 
snare  he  is  falling;  but  he  is  resolved  to  plunge  on,  heed- 
less of  consequences.  "  Neither  the  wisest  man,"  says  he, 
"  nor  the  wisest  set  of  men,  can  secure  themselves  against 
errors,  whatever  guide  they  may  assume.'*  So  that  they 
cannot  secure  themselves  against  errors,  even  by  assuming 
for  their  guide  the  Church  of  Rome  herself.  "  It  is  God 
alone  that  can  secure  men  from  error :"  so  say  Protestants 
likewise.  But  how  can  he  do  this,  except  by  the  instru- 
mentality of  revelation  and  reason  ?  If  these  be  not  the 
means  of  coming  at  the  truth,  to  what  purpose  are  all  the 
Doctor's  appeals  to  Scripture  and  reason,  to  prove  the  in- 
fallibility and  doctrines  of  his  Church  ?  By  omitting  these 
appeals,  he  might  have  saved  us  both  considerable  trouble. 

(rf)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


S61 

But  how  he  could  have  proved  that  "  the  Church  is  se- 
cured against  errors  by  the  special  assistance  of  Jesus 
Christ,  without  exercising  the  faculty  of  his  reason  to  dis- 
cover this  promise  in  the  volume  of  revelation,  would  re- 
quire a  train  of  sophistry  more  subtle  than  even  that  of  the 
Doctor.  The  fact,  then,  is,  that  the  Protestant  Churches^ 
being  lively  branches  of  the  Catholic  Church,  have  the  pro- 
mise of  Christ  to  secure  them  from  destructive  errors. 
This  promise  they  find  in  their  Bibles;  on  him  who  made 
it,  they  rely  for  its  performance  ;  and  his  unerring  guidance 
they  endeavour  cordially  to  adopt  and  follow,  as  well  as 
every  other  doctrine  and  precept  which  they  read  in  his 
revealed  word.  As  to  the  divisions  among  Protestants, 
which  the  Doctor  attributes  to  their  making  the  Scripture 
their  sole  rule  of  faith,  they  were  such  as  did  not  aim  at 
subverting  the  foundations  of  Christianity,  or,  if  they  did 
so,  the  communities  thus  guilty  no  longer  deserved  the 
name  of  Christian  Churches.  Divisions  or  variations  among 
the  first  reformers  did,  undoubtedly  exist,  but  they  were 
not  destructive.  Unanimity  was  not  to  be  expected  from 
persons  labouring  under  ancient  prejudices,  and  striving  to 
remove  various  errors  and  abuses,  novel  tenets,  and  unjus- 
tifiable observances,  gradually  accumulated  through  pre- 
ceding ages.  In  this  mighty  work,  the  timid  were  afraid 
of  advancing  too  far,  and  the  intrepid  knew  not,  sometimes, 
at  what  point  to  stop.  Some  years  were  necessary  to  calm 
the  tempest,  and  bring  order  out  of  confusion.  This  was 
done  much  sooner  than  the  most  sanguine  lovers  of  truth 
had  anticipated  ;  and  the  event  was,  that  all  the  real  or 
pretended  variations  of  Bossuet,  collected  with  so  much 
ingenuity  and  research,  prove  nothing  against  the  princi- 
pies  of  Protestants  ;  they  serve  only  to  show,  that  man,  in 
spite  of  all  his  boasted  knowledge  and  best  resolves,  is  still 
a  frail,  unsettled,  and  imperfect  being,  and  that  nothing 
but  a  plain,  revealed,  and  written  code  of  faith,  can  restrain 
his  wanderings  into  fatal  and  damnable  errors.     This  ele« 

H  h 


S62 

gant  libel  received  a  complete  refutation  from  Basnage,  in 
his  "  Historic  de  la  Religion  des  Eglises  Reformees." 

However,  as  the  Doctor  seems  to  lay  great  stress  upon 
the  authority  of  his  illustrious  Bossuet,  famous  for  nothing 
so  much  as  for  his  cruel  animosity  against  the  truly  illus- 
trious Fenelon ;  for  his  oppression  of  poor  Madame  Guion, 
and  his  heretical  opinions  respecting  religious  persecution, 
which  he  always  maintained  and  realized  when  he  could;  it 
may  be  well  enough  to  inform  the  reader,  that  his  famous 
"  exposition  of  the  Roman  Catholic  faith,"  furnishes  am- 
ple matter  for  retaliation,  on  the  subject  of  religious  varia- 
tions. Although  this  little  book  be  now  considered  by  the 
Doctor  as  the  standard  of  orthodoxy,  yet,  many  years 
elapsed,  from  its  first  publication,  before  it  could  obtain 
the  approbation  of  the  pope,  though  sanctioned  by  the 
Archbishop  of  Rheims,  and  nine  other  prelates.  Even  the 
Sorbonne  itself  disavowed  the  doctrines  it  contained  ;  and 
many  Roman  Catholic  priests  were  severely  persecuted,  for 
maintaining  its  principles,  which  were  formally  condemned 
by  the  university  of  Louvain.  The  artifices  employed  in 
the  composition  of  this  book,  and  the  tricks  that  were 
played  off  in  the  suppression  and  alteration  of  its  first  edi- 
tion, may  be  seen  fully  detailed  in  Archbishop  Wake's 
"  introduction"  to  his  "  exposition  of  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church  of  Enghind."  The  variations,  therefore,  among 
Protestant  Churches,  afford  no  argument  against  the  suf- 
ficiency of  Scripture,  as  the  only  rule  of  their  faith  ;  and 
their  security  in  resting  exclusively  upon  this  immoveable 
foundation.  To  say  that  all  sects  professing  to  follow 
Scripture  as  their  guide,  have  not  actually  secured  them- 
selves from  fundamental  errors,  such  as  the  Arians,  Soci- 
nians,&c.  and  that  such  a  guide  is  of  course  insufficient  for 
salvation,  is  only  to  say,  that  some  men  have  actually  "per- 
Terted  the  Scriptures,  and  denied  the  Lord  who  bought 
them."  Without  impeaching  her  own  rule  of  faith,  does 
not  the  Roman  Church  maintain,  that  they  who  have  gone 


363 

out  from  her,  have  broached  "  damnable  heresies ;"  and 
may  not  Protestants  pronounce  the  same  opinion,  of  those 
who  have  abandoned  the  orthodox  tenets  of  all  antiquity, 
and  of  the  great  body  of  Protestants,  from  the  time  of  the 
reformation.  Is  their  rule  of  faith  insecure,  because  pride, 
or  prejudice,  has  chosen  to  abandon  it  ?  The  Doctor's 
reasoning  on  this  head  is  palpable  sophistry  :  he  argues 
against  the  use  of  a  thing,  from  its  abuse.  On  the  Scrip- 
tures, then,  alone  the  Protestant  builds  his  faith:  because 
he  believes  them  to  be  written  by  divine  inspiration,  and 
that  the  language  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  full  as  intelligible 
as  that  of  a  pope  or  council  can  be  :  because,  whatever  the 
presumed  unerring  guide  of  the  Roman  Catholics  could  do 
for  him,  can  be  effected  by  the  Bible  with  more  certainty, 
and  with  equal  security  :  because,  in  adhering  to  the  Scrip- 
tures only,  he  would  chiefly  follow  that  by  which  they 
prove  their  infallibility,  since  he  must  be  more  sure  of  the 
proof,  than  of  the  thing  proved  :  because,  although  in  fol- 
lowing Scripture,  he  must  admit  several  doctrines,  which 
reason  never  could  have  discovered  ;  yet  is  he  not  required 
to  assent  to  any  thing,  which  solid  reason  can  refute,  and 
which  involves  a  palpable  contradiction  :  because,  in  ad- 
hering to  the  Church  of  Rome,  he  must  believe  that 
Church  to  be  exempt  from  error,  upon  much  less  evidence 
than  that  which  points  out  many  of  her  doctrines  as  un- 
founded and  irrational  :  because  the  Scripture  worship  is 
replete  with  genuine  dignity,  simplicity,  and  plainness, 
which  speak  its  divine  original  ;  whereas,  he  sees  in  her 
worship  a  ritual,  repugnant  both  to  his  understanding  and 
his  feelings :  because,  in  following  the  Scriptures,  he 
cleaves  to  what  universal  tradition  assures  him  to  be  the 
word  of  God  ;  but,  in  believing  the  doctrines  of  the  Roman 
Church,  he  must  yield  to  a  very  partial  tradition,  which 
many  good  and  learned  men  have  often  contested  :  be- 
cause, in  following  the  Scripture,  he  follows  a  law,  which 
the  more  he  studies,  the  more  he  loves,  and   the  more  he 


364 

understands;  but  in  following  her  discriminating  articles, 
the  more  he  examines  them,  the  more  questionable  they 
appear,  the  more  obscure,  and  uncertain,  from  every  ap- 
peal both  to  reason  and  revelation :  because,  in  following 
the  Apostles,  he  follows  disinterested  guides ;  whereas,  it 
is  the  interest  of  all  Roman  Catholic  rulers  and  teachers, 
that  their  dominion  should  be  upheld,  and  their  influence 
over  men's  consciences  be  maintained.  In  one  word,  the 
faith  of  Protestants  is  built  exclusively  upon  the  Scrip- 
tures, because  the  inspired  Psalmist  assures  us,  that  they 
are  "a  lamp  unto  our  feet,  and  a  light  unto  our  path:'* 
(Ps*  119.)  because  our  Lord  continually  refers  to  the 
Scriptures  to  determine  controversies,  commanding  them 
to  "be  searched  as  testifying  of  him,  who  is  the  Author 
and  Finisher  of  our  faith  :"  because  his  blessed  Apostle 
tells  us,  (2  Tim.  iii.  16.)  "That  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  &;c.  that 
the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works  :"  perfect  in  his  faith,  and  walking  in  God's 
commandments;  wanting  nothing  more  to  perfect  his 
Christian  character;  and  again,  {Rom.  xv.  4.)  "Whatso- 
ever things  were  written  aforetime,  were  written  for  our 
learning,  for  our  instruction,  that  we  tiirough  patience  and 
comfort  of  the  Scriptures  might  have  hope ;"  thus  ex^ 
pressly  teaching  that  the  hopes,  and,  consequently,  the  se- 
curity of  Christians,  are  grounded  on  the  Scriptures.  Now, 
if  4hese,  and  many  similar  texts,  be  not  conclusive,  it 
must  be  because  the  Doctor  lays  it  down  as  an  evident 
truth,  that  "  these  books  (of  the  holy  Bible)  do  not  assert 
or  vouch  their  own  divine  inspiration  ;"  so  that  the  prophets 
and  Apostles,  when  they  wrote,  did  not,  according  to  the 
Doctor,  pretend  to,  or  indicate  any  divine  inspiration.  A 
curious  assertion,  indeed,  for  a  Christian  divine  ! — But  let 
this  blunder  also  pass.  We  have  thus  far  attended  the 
Doctor  pretty  faithfully,  though  with  that  brevity  which  is 
consistent  witii  slJcw  cursory  remarks  upon  his  hook.     As 


365 

to  the  various  texts  of  holy  Scripture,  upon  which  he  builds 
the  infallibility  of  his  Church,  they  are  all  noticed,  and,  I 
trust,  candidly  explained  in   the   Short  Answer  to  the  Ap- 
pendix; and,  if  the  reader  should  wish  for  further  informa- 
tion on  this  head,  he  has  only  to  turn  to  the  polemical  works 
of  Chillingworth.  Usher,  Barrow,  and  an  innumerable  host 
of  Protestant  writers  ;  who  have  repeatedly  and  completely 
annihilated  these  lofty  pretensions  of  the  Roman  Church, 
whenever  men  of  real  erudition  and  candour  have  thought 
themselves  at  liberty,  with  unbiassed  minds,  to  examine 
them  to  the  bottom.     In  these  works,  the  reader  will  find 
that  all  the  arguments  in  support  of  her  infallibility,  drawn 
either  from   its   expediency,  necessity,  or  advantages,  or 
from  its  vindicating  the  veracity  of  Christ  and  his  Apos- 
tles, are  empty  words  and  vain  theology  ;  that  it  affords  no 
grounds  for  present  consolation,  or  hopes  of  future  happi- 
ness, which  communion  with  Protestant  Churches,  as  in- 
tegral parts  of  Christ's  mystical  body,  does  not  equally  and 
more  satisfactorily  supply,  and  that  after  all  that  can  be 
said  upon  the  subject,  the  great  body  of  Christians  have  as 
powerful,  nay,  more  powerful  inducements  to  rely  upon 
the   teaching  of  a  Protestant  minister,  than  of  a  Romish 
priest ;  I  say,  more  powerful,  because  the  first  refers  them 
for  his  doctrines  to  the  unerring  oracles  of  God,  while  the 
latter  enjoins  implicit  submission  to  his  infallible  Church, 
without  being  able  to  tell  him  clearly  where  this  infalli- 
bility can    be  found.     All  the   pages  of  this  part  of  the 
Doctor's  reply,  are  laboured  with  much  subtlety,  and  cal- 
culated to  lead  the  reader  through  many  intricate  windings 
of  his   polemical    labyrinth.     But  a  clue  may  readily  be 
found  to  enable  us  to  penetrate  into  its  most  hidden  re- 
cesses.    Entrenched  within  these,  the  Doctor  delivers  his 
oracular  dogmata,  and,  like  Virgil's  Sybil,  thunders  out  his 
dark  denunciations,   blending   truth  with  obscurity,  and, 

like  her,  surrounded  only  with  sapless  leaves. 

Hh  2 


366 

"  Talibus  ex  adyto  diclis  Cumcea  Sibilla 
Horrendas  canit  ambages,  anlroque  remugit; 
Obscuris  vera  involvens." 

The  clue  alluded  to,  is  this:  in  every  instance,  the  Doc- 
tor confounds  the  Catholic  with  the  Roman  Church ;  all 
the  promises  and  privileges  belonging  to  the  former,  he 
appropriates  to  the  latter,  under  the  pretension,  that  to 
her  alone  belongs  the  monopoly  of  all  Gospel  blessings, 
and  the  name  of  a  Christian  Church.  Let  him  prove  this, 
and  his  dark  sayings  will  appear  luminous,  and  the  con- 
troversy will  be  ended.  But,  "  she  is  the  Mother  and 
Mistress  of  all  Churches  ;"  so  says  Pope  Pius ;  so  has  the 
Doctor  sworn.  She  has  never  swerved  from  the  primitive 
faith,  nor  can  she  do  so  j  she  has  never  innovated,  nor  can 
she  innovate.  In  her  the  man  of  sin,  the  false  propAe^,  can 
never  be  found:  in  her  the  mystery  of  iniquity  can  never 
begin  to  woi'k.  She  silteth  as  a  queen,  and  never  can  be 
driven  into  the  wilderness  ;  and  this,  because  "  every  suc- 
ceeding generation  of  Christians  bore  constant  and  uni- 
form testimony  to  the  truth  of  her  doctrines,  from  the 
Apostolic  to  the  present  times.  These  numerous  genera- 
tions, constituting,  at  every  period  of  time,  the  Catholic 
Chuich,  were  all  simultaneous  witnesses  of  the  doctrine 
received,  preached,  and  approved  by  common  consent  :  so 
that  no  one  of  these  generations  could  make  a  change,  or 
a  false  report  of  the  faith  of  its  predecessors,  to  the  en- 
suing generation,  without  being  contradicted  and  confound- 
ed by  all  the  other  generations  existing  at  the  same  time." 
This  is  a  favourite  argument  with  Roman  Catholic  divines, 
and  the  Doctor  prosecutes  it  with  tiresome  prolixity.  But 
what  does  it  amount  to  ?  Merely  to  prove,  what  Protes- 
tants never  denied,  that  when  destructive  heresies  arose  in 
the  Church,  great  bodies  of  the  faithful  immediately  op- 
posed  and  condemned  them,  as  levelled  at  those  common 
and  essential  doctrines  of  Christianity,  which  have  been 
delivered  down,  through   successive  generations,  to   the 


367 

present  day.  These,  however,  have  been  greatly  obscured 
in  some  particular  Churches,  while  others  have  preserved 
them  in  all  their  purity ;  and  it  might  readily  be  shown, 
and  Dr.  Milner  has  shown  in  his  History  of  the  Church, 
that  in  every  age,  even  the  most  ignorant  and  flagitious, 
individuals  and  communities  have  adhered  to  the  Scriptu- 
ral doctrines  of  salvation  ;  while  surrounding  Churches, 
and  that  of  Rome  in  particular,  encumbered  them  with 
idle  and  superstitious  innovations.  But  when,  or  where,  or 
by  whom,  were  these  innovations  introduced?  As  well 
might  we  be  required  to  ascertain  the  origin  of  every  na- 
tion and  language  upon  the  earth,  as  to  trace  each  religious 
opinion  or  practice  to  its  source.  The  beginning  and  pro- 
gress of  innumerable  errors  and  superstitions,  are  wrapt  in 
obscurity.  There  was  a  time  when  the  Church  of  Rome, 
like  others  of  Christendom,  was  pure  and  evangelical,  and 
"  her  faith  was  spoken  of  throughout  the  whole  world  ;" 
but,  like  others,  founded  by  the  Apostles,  she  fell  away, 
gradually,  from  her  first  love,  and  during  the  long  preva- 
lence of  brutal  ignorance,  and  more  than  Cimmerian  dark- 
ness, in  which  all  Christendom  was  enveloped,  from  the  ir- 
ruption of  the  northern  hordes,  almost  down  to  the  period 
of  the  reformation,  she  enjoyed  ample  opportunities  of  in- 
troducing any  opinions,  of  imposing  any  burthens  that 
might  swell  her  treasures,  or  gratify  her  ambition.  When 
the  Doctor,  then,  contends,  that  to  prove  the  existence  of 
an  error,  we  must  show  when  it  began,  or  that  it  cannot  be 
received  by  one  generation  without  being  condemned  by 
the  following,  he  is  not  aware  of  the  consequences  to 
which  his  opinion  leads  him;  for,  should  it  be  well  found- 
ed, idolatry  could  never  have  existed  in  the  world.  It  is, 
I  believe,  admitted  on  all  hands,  that  the  worship  of  Je- 
hovah was  originally  universal,  without  any  mixture  of 
idolatry  among  the  sons  of  Adam,  for  some  time  after  ths 
creation ;  and  that  it  became  universal  again  among  the 
descendants  of  Noah  for  some  ages  after  the  flood  ;  but  in 


368 

neither  of  these  periods  did  this  worship  remain  long  un» 
corrupted.  The  antediluvian  Church  was  gradually  infect- 
ed with  error,  and,  like  the  Christian,  had  her  watchmen 
ready  to  refute  it.  "  In  the  days  of  Enos  men  began  to 
call  themselves  by  the  name  of  Jehovah."  (Gen.  iv.  26.) 
At  this  time  pious  men  became  alarmed  at  the  beginning 
of  idolatry  in  the  reprobate  family  of  Cain,  and,  like  many 
communities  in  the  most  gloomy  night  of  the  Christian  era, 
formed  themselves  into  a  distinct  party  from  the  dominant 
religion,  and  assumed  to  themselves  a  name  indicative  of 
the  pure  worshippers  of  God.  Now,  when  or  where  did 
this  idolatrous  worship  begin  ?  Will  the  Doctor  question 
it,  because  he  cannot  fix  its  date  or  its  authors  ?  The  case 
in  the  postdiluvian  Church  is  precisely  the  same.  Noah 
and  his  family  came  forth  from  the  ark  the  pure  worship- 
pers of  the  true  God  ;  but  their  posterity  soon  began  to  ex- 
hibit symptoms  of  idolatrous  propensities,  and  to  blend  su- 
perstitious observances  with  the  worship  of  the  Eternal. 
Instead  of  every  successive  generation  protesting  against 
the  innovations  of  the  preceding,  it  rather  embraced  them 
with  increasing  eagerness,  until  at  length  incorrigible  su- 
perstition separated  all  the  ancient  idolaters  from  the  pa- 
triarchal Church,  and  ended  in  total  apostacy. 

Now,  when,  or  by  whom,  was  this  mixture  of  idolatry 
and  superstition  introduced?  We  find  "Terah,  the  father 
of  Abraham,  serving  other  gods;"  and  little  doubt  can  re» 
main,  that  the  ancestors  of  Abraham,  and  Abraham  himself, 
before  God's  gracious  call,  were  infected  with  the  idolatry 
which  prevailed  in  that  age.  But  in  the  interval  between 
the  deluge  and  the  calling  of  Abraham,  an  interval  of  426 
years,  when,  or  where,  did  this  idolatry  begin  ?  This  dis- 
cussion might  be  extended  to  any  length;  but  enough  has 
been  said  to  check  the  triumphant  strain  of  the  Doctor,  and 
likewise  to  convince  the  reader,  that  with  the  worship  of 
the  true  God,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  his  providence, 
some  superstitious  errors,  not  destructive  of  either,  may 


369 

subsist :  "  Just  as  at  this  day,  in  the  Roman  Church,  the 
worship  of  the  ever  blessed  Trinity  subsists  in  preposterous 
conjunction  with  the  worship  of  canonized  men,  and  inani- 
mate relics." — {See  Bishop  Horseley''s  Dissertation  on  the 
Prophecies  of  the  Messiah,  &;c.)  We  cannot,  therefore, 
fix  with  precision,  the  exact  period  when  erroneous  opinions 
and  practices  crept  into  the  Church.  It  is  sufficient  for 
Protestants  to  show,  that  they  have  existed,  do  exist,  and 
have  been  refuted  and  renounced.  But,  blessed  be  God, 
we  can  readily  point  to  a  time  when  such  opinions  were 
unknown.  We  can  turn  to  the  books  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  shall  there  find  nothing  of  them.  "If,"  says 
Dr.  A.  Clarke,  "  they  be  not  met  with  in  an  Apostolic 
epistle  directed  to  this  very  Roman  Church,  it  would  be 
absurd  to  look  for  them  any  where  else.  But  there  is  not 
one  distinguishing  doctrine,  or  practice,  of  the  Romish 
Church,  found  in  this  epistle.  Here  is  no  pope,  no  exclu- 
sive churchship,  no  indulgences,  no  auricular  confessions, 
purgatories,  masses,  prayers  for  the  dead,  justification  by 
works,  transubstantiation,  extreme  unction,  invocation  of 
saints  and  angels,  worship  of  images,  dec.  &c.  Here  are 
no  inquisitions,  no  writs  de  hceretico  comburendo  ;^^  nor,  it 
may  be  added,  that  holy  incompatihility  which  the  illus' 
friows  Bossuet  claims  for  his  Church,  and  which,  he  tells  us 
exultingly,  renders  her  the  most  intolerant  of  all  Churches* 
"  But,"  continues  the  learned  commentator,  "  here  is  no- 
thing puerile,  nugatory,  or  superstitious;  no  dogma  de- 
grading to  the  understanding;  no  religious  act  unworthy 
of  the  spirit  and  dignity  of  the  Gospel ;  nothing  that  has 
not  the  most  immediate  tendency  to  enlighten  the  mind 
and  mend  the  heart  of  man.  In  a  word,  every  thing  is 
suitable  to  the  state  of  man,  and  worthy  of  the  majesty, 
justice,  and  benevolence  of  that  God  from  whom  this  epis- 
tle came.  Nor  should  we  look  for  these  doctrines  and 
practices  with  more  success  in  the  writings  of  the  primitive 
fathers.     To  pretend  that  there  was  a  universal  consent  or 


370 

agreement  upon  these  points,  during  the  first  ages  of  the 
Church,  is  to  support  a  paradox,  which  deserves  no  consi- 
deration. It  is  utterly  destitute  of  all  historical  evidence, 
which,  however,  is  pointed  and  conclusive,  that  for  several 
centuries  they  were  not  known  in  the  Church  :  Providence 
has  mercifully  furnished  this  evidence  in  our  day — the  star 
of  truth  has  appeared  in  the  East.  A  precious  remnant  of 
primitive  Christians  has  been  discovered  in  India,  which, 
for  more  than  thirteen  centuries,  has  preserved  the  great 
and  fundamental  doctrines  of  religion,  pure  and  unadulte- 
rated from  more  modern  corruptions.  When,  in  the  begin- 
ning of  the  16th  century,  the  Portuguese  arrived  in  India, 
they  found  upwards  of  a  hundred  Churches  on  the  coast  of 
Malabar.  They  immediately  claimed  these  Churches  as 
belonging  to  the  pope  ;  but  the  answer  was,  "  Who  is  the 
pope?  we  never  heard  of  him."  "  We,"  said  they,  "  are  of 
the  true  faith,  whatever  you  from  the  West  may  be,  for  we 
come  from  the  place  where  the  followers  of  Christ  were 
first  called  Christians."  They  came,  indeed,  from  Syria, 
while  Churches  founded  by  the  Apostles  were  flourishing 
in  that  country,  and  boasted  of  enjoying,  for  1300  years 
past,  a  succession  of  bishops,  appointed  by  the  patriarch  of 
Antioch.  The  Portuguese  soon  perceived  how  formidable 
these  Churches  might  prove  against  many  of  their  doctrines 
and  superstitious  observances.  They  invaded  these  haim- 
less  people,  and  lighted  up  against  the  refractory  the  flames 
of  the  inquisition.  A  compulsory  synod  was  held,  at 
which  150  of  the  Syrian  clergy  appeared,  where  they  were 
accused  of  the  following  practices  and  opinions:  "That 
they  had  married  wives ;  that  they  owned  but  two  sacra- 
ments, baptism  and  the  Lord's  supper;  that  they  neither 
invoked  saints,  nor  worshipped  images,  nor  believed  in 
purgatory ;  and  that  they  had  no  other  orders  or  names  of 
dignity  in  the  Church,  than  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon." 
These  tenets,  they  were  called  on  to  abjure,  or  to  suffer 
suspension  from  all  Church  benefices.  It  was  also  decreed, 


371 

that  all  the  Syrian  books  on  ecclesiastical  subjects,  that 
could  be  found,  should  be  burned  ;  "  in  order,"  said  the 
inquisitors,  "  that  no  pretended  apostolical  monuments  may 
remain."  [See  Buchanan's  Christian  Researches  in  India, 
p.  149.)  "  The  doctrines  of  the  Syrian  Churches,"  says 
this  apostolic  and  learned  man,  "are  few  in  number,  but 
pure,  and  agree  in  essential  points  with  those  of  the 
Church  of  England." 

"Here  is  a  fact,  a  clear,  unquestionable,  historical  fact, 
that  sets  all  the  Doctor's  sophistry  at  defiance.  Here  is  a 
branch  of  the  primitive  Apostolic  Church,  subsisting  uncor- 
rupted  through  a  long  series  of  ages,  and  miraculously  pre- 
served as  a  living  witness,  that  neither  the  head,  nor  many 
doctrines  of  the  present  Church  of  Rome,  were  known  to 
antiquity.  The  candid  attention  of  Roman  Catholics,  is 
confidently  invited  to  this  fact,  for  it  appears  of  sufficient 
weight  to  silence  every  cavil  on  the  subject,  and  to  render 
perfectly  nugatory  the  very  tedious  train  of  sophistical  rea- 
sonings with  which  the  Doctor  concludes  his  book.  I  say, 
his  arguments  all  vanish  before  this  luminous  fact ;  for  it 
is  incumbent  on  him  to  prove,  that  either  through  a  long 
lapse  of  ages,  these  Churches  held  the  discriminating  doc- 
trines and  discipline  of  his  Church,  or  that,  at  the  period  of 
their  emigration,  they  were  no  Churches  at  all.  Now,  the 
facts  mentioned  by  Dr.  Buchanan,  refute  both  these  suppo- 
sitions. They  were,  undoubtedly,  sound  and  lively  branches 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  They  claimed  no  infallibility,  but 
that  which  they  derived  from  the  Scriptures  ;  no  traditions 
but  such  as  are  evidently  apostolical  ;  no  Scriptural  canon, 
but  that  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament,  which  prevailed  in 
the  Eastern  Churches  when  they  arrived  in  India,  and 
which  is  nearly  the  same  with  that  of  the  Protestant  Churches 
at  this  day.  For  1300  years  they  professed  and  experienced 
the  sufficiency  of  the  holy  Scripture  for  salvation,  as  the 
sixth  article  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  expresses  it. 


572 

Against  this  article,  the  Doctor  puts  forth  all  his  skill, 
and  calls  up,  through  several  pages,  all  his  resources  of 
polemical  sophistry :  resources  which  have  a  thousand 
times  been  proved  empty  and  futile,  but  which,  notwith- 
standing, it  is  perhaps  expedient  briefly  to  notice  in  this 
place.  This,  however,  can  be  nothing  more  than  a  further 
illustration  of  the  argument  in  the  Short  Anstver,  which  the 
Doctor  embarrasses,  but  does  not  confute.  He  tells  us  that, 
in  forming  our  religious  faith,  we  are  not  "  to  convince 
ourselves,  in  the  first  instance,  that  the  Scriptures  are  in- 
spired by  Almighty  God,  and  consequently  possess  a  plena- 
ry authority  ;  and  that  then  we  are  to  believe  the  doctrines 
which  they  contain,  because  they  are  revealed."  All  this 
the  Doctor  denies  :  but,  can  he  show  how  faith  can  be  pro- 
duced in  any  other  way  ?  Can  it  be  founded  on  any  thing 
but  the  veracity  of  God,  as  its  formal  and  ultimate  motive, 
and  the  rational  conviction  that  God  has  revealed  his  will 
to  man?  "  But,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  every  man  is  bound  to 
believe  the  articles  of  his  faith,  with  an  entire  certainty  of 
their  being  revealed  by  God."  This  belief,  he  calls  "  an 
act  of  faith,  totally  distinct  from  opinion,  moral  certainty^ 
and  every  persuasion,  which  admits  of  doubt,  hesitation,  or 
possibility  of  being  mistaken."  This  is  the  groundwork  of 
all  his  following  reasonings,  in  favour  of  an  infallible  autho- 
rity in  his  Church.  If  once  subverted,  the  whole  fabric 
tumbles  together.  Now,  this  can  easily  be  done,  for  what 
is  an  act  of  religious  faith,  but  a  belief  of  a  religio-us  doc- 
trine, because  God  has  revealed  it,  who  can  neither  de- 
ceive nor  be  deceived.  But,  how  are  we  to  know  that  God 
has  revealed  it?  "  Because,''  says  the  Doctor,  *'  my  infal- 
lible Church  has  decreed  that  he  has  done  so."  But  how 
shall  I  know,  rejoins  the  person  who  is  instructed,  either 
that  your  Church  is  infallible,  or  that  she  has  made  such  a 
decree  ?  "  Because,"  says  Dr.  O'Gallagher,  "  1  solemnly 
assure  you,  that  this  infallibility  is  revealed  in  the  Scrip- 
tures, and  these  decrees  have  been  made  by  popes  and 


373 

councils."  Thus,  the  Roman  Catholic  acquiesces  ultimately 
in   the   authority    of    his    teacher,   while    the   Protestant 
"  searches  the  Scriptures  as  he  is  commanded,  in  order  to 
examine  if  these  things  be  so."     They  both  believe  the 
doctrine,  because  God  has  revealed  it;  but  supposing  eacli 
incapable  of  close  and  deep  investigation,  the  first  is  refer- 
red by  a  fallible  priest  to  an  infallible  Church,  and  the  lat- 
ter by  his  fallible  teacher  to  the  acknowledged  oracles  of 
God.     Which  of  the  two  will  feel  most  secure,  let  the  rea- 
der determine.   When,  therefore,  the  Doctor  asserts,  "  The 
Scriptures  contain  a  revelation  from  God,  and  of  course 
their  doctrines  are  articles  of  Christian  faith,"  the  first  of 
these  propositions  must  be  previously  established  by  the 
deductions  of  reason,  founded  either  on  actual  investigation 
or  satisfactory  authority,  before  the  second  can  be  admitted, 
and  become  an  act  of  faith.    A  firm  and  rational  conviction 
that  a  doctrine  is  revealed  in  the  word  of  God,  is  sufficient 
to  elevate  it  to  an  object  of  our  faith  ;  but  still  it  remains 
to  be  proved  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  and 
his  infallible  oracles.     This  can  only  be  done  by  their  own 
intrinsic  excellence,  and  the  collateral  arguments  adduced 
for  this   purpose.     These    indeed   are   unanswerable,  but 
they  are  not  articles  of  faith,  but  only  motives  of  believing. 
Now,  motives  fur  believing  a  fact  cannot  be  belief  itself,  or 
an  act  of  religious  faith.     All,  therefore,  except  those  who 
delight  in  cavilling,  will  readily  understand  the  meaning  of 
the  above  mentioned  article  to  be  nothing  more  than  that 
all  the  divine  truths  which  Christ  revealed  to  his  Apostles, 
and  which  they  delivered  to  the  Churches,  are  contained  in 
the  Scriptures ;  in  other  words,  all  the  material  objects  of 
our  faith,  of  which  the  Scripture  is  not  one,  but  only  the 
means  of  conveying  them  unto  us ;  which  we  believe  not 
ultimately,  and  on  its  own  account,  but  on  account  of  the 
matter  contained  in  it.     So  that,  if  we  should  believe  the 
doctrines  of  the  Scripture,  and  live  accordingly,  our  salva- 
tion would  not  be  eflTccted,  even  if  we  were  ignorant  of  the 

I  i 


374 

existence  of  any  Scripture  whatever.  The  end  proposed 
by  the  Almighty  is  the  belief  of  the  Gospel,  the  covenant 
between  him  and  man  ,*  God  has  provided  the  Scripture  as 
a  mean  for  this  end,  and  this  we  must  believe,  not  as  the 
ultimate  object  of  our  faith,  but  as  its  instrument  only.  It 
follows,  then,  from  what  has  been  said,  and  from  much 
more  that  might  readily  be  said  on  this  subject,  that  the 
Protestant  grounds  his  faith  upon  the  veracity  of  God,  and 
so  far  possesses  an  infallible  assurance  that  it  is  sound  and 
divine.  He  wants  no  living,  unerring  interpreter,  to  inform 
him  what  doctrines  are  contained  in  the  Scriptures;  he 
discovers  them  himself,  written  in  as  plain  and  intelligible 
language  as  any  pope  or  councils  can  employ ;  and  which 
he  is  satisfied  to  learn  from  pious,  intelligent,  and  confiden- 
tial instructors,  fully  as  competent,  he  conceives,  to  teach 
and  demonstrate  what  are  scriptural  doctrines,  as  the  high- 
est pretenders  to  infallible  decisions.  Is  any  infallible  tri- 
bunal necessary  to  ascertain  the  articles  of  the  Apostles' 
creed,  the  great  doctrines  of  man's  fall  and  redemption,  the 
influences  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  other  essential  tenets  of 
the  Catholic  Church,  which  she  always  professed  to  receive 
on  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures?  Now,  these  being  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  Christianity,  the  Protestant  re- 
quires no  living  authority  to  assure  him  that  they  are  con- 
tained in  his  Bible  :  he  has  only  to  open  it  to  find  them 
there ;  and  when  he  learns,  moreover,  that  the  universal 
Church  has  always  received  them,  he  endeavours  to  excite 
in  his  heart  such  teachable  dispositions  as,  with  the  grace 
of  God,  eventuate  in  unwavering  faith  and  assurance.  The 
Doctor,  probably,  never  attended  a  pious  Protestant  on  his 
dying  bed ;  but  he  may  be  assured,  that  never  was  any  un- 
easiness felt  or  expressed,  with  regard  to  his  faith  being 
grounded  on  the  Scriptures  alone  :  a  few  appropriate  pas- 
sages from  these  divine  oracles  compose  and  animate  his 
departing  spirit,  much  more  rationally  and  eflfectually  than 
any  reference  to  the  intercession  of  saints,  or  other  practices 


375 

of  a  Church  self-denominated  infallible,  can  do.  But,  con- 
tinues the  Doctor,  "  to  follow  up  Protestant  principles  with 
consistency,  he  must  learn  from  the  Scripture  itself  what 
books  of  the  Holy  Bible  are  divinely  inspired,  and  what  is 
the  true  canon  thereof."  The  fallacy  of  the  first  part  of 
this  position  has  already  been  shown,  and,  as  to  the  canon 
of  the  Scripture,  no  infallibility  is  requisite  to  ascertain  it. 
Protestants  admit  their  canon  of  the  Scripture  upon  the 
credibility  oi  universal  tradition,  not  upon  the  authority  of 
any  particular  Church:  and  it  might  readily  be  proved, 
that  of  the  authority  of  the  canon  of  Scripture,  generally 
adopted  by  Protestants,  there  never  was  any  doubt  in  the 
Catholic  Church.  But,  supposing  we  should  submit  in  this, 
and  all  other  points,  to  the  decision  of  the  Roman  Church, 
how  could  she  assure  us  that  we  should  not  be  misled  1 
She  pretends,  indeed,  to  infallibility ;  but  how  can  she  con- 
vince us  that  she  possesses  it?  Will  it  be  from  Scripture? 
That,  says  the  Doctor,  cannot  assure  us  of  its  own  infalli- 
bility, and,  therefore,  not  of  his  Church's.  Will  it  be  from 
reason?  That,  surely,  may  deceive  us  in  other  things; 
and  why  not  in  this?  How  then  will  she  convince  us  1 
By  saying  so.  But  of  this  very  affirmation,  the  same  ques- 
tion will  return.  How  can  it  prove  itself  to  be  infallibly 
true?  So  that  there  can  be  no  end  of  multiplying  such 
-questions,  until  we  can  rest  upon  something  self-evident, 
which  demonstrates  to  the  world  that  this  Church  is  infalli- 
ble. Now,  since  no  such  rock  can  be  found,  on  which  to 
build  this  mighty  claim,  it  must  of  necessity,  like  the  island 
of  Delos,  float  up  and  down  for  ever  ;  and  yet  upon  this 
point,  according  to  Roman  Catholics,  all  other  controver- 
sies of  faith  depend. 

Wherefore,  the  Doctor  needed  not  to  urge  any  reason  to 
prove,  "  that  questions  about  Scripture  are  not  to  be  decided 
by  Scripture  :"  it  is  a  self-evident  proposition,  and  readily 
granted  :  but  the  corollary  which  he  infers  from  it,  that 
"  jthereibre  thej  ajre  to  be  decided  by  his,  or  any  visible 


376 

Church,  is  an  illogical  conclusion,  much  like  that  of  the 
sophist,  who,  because  Pamphilus  was  not  to  have  Glyceria 
for  his  wife,  concluded  that  he  must  have  her  himself:  as 
if  there  had  been  no  more  men  in  the  world  but  he  and 
Pamphilus.  So,  the  Doctor,  having  concluded  that  such 
questions  could  not  be  settled  by  Scripture,  appeals  to  his 
infallible  Church  as  the  only  authority  remaining.  But  the 
truth  is,  neither  the  one  nor  the  other,  has  any  thing  to  do 
with  this  matter.  For  the  question,  "  whether  such  or 
such  a  book  be  canonical  Scripture,"  although  it  may  be 
decided  negatively  out  of  Scripture,  by  showing  apparent 
and  irreconcileable  contradictions  between  it  and  some  other 
book  confessedly  canonical,  yet  affirmatively  it  cannot  be, 
except  by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  the  ancient  Churches. 
"  But  Protestants,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  have  excluded  seve- 
ral books  from  the  canon  of  Scripture,"  which  are  made 
part  of  it  by  the  council  of  Trent.  He  then  enumerates 
these  books,  of  all  which,  it  would  be  easy  to  prove,  that 
doubts  existed  in  the  ancient  Church.  In  every  learned 
commentator,  the  reader  will  find  these  proofs;  so  that  the 
sacrilegious  cheats  Luther,  and  all  the  Protestant  Churches, 
whom  the  Doctor  classes  with  the  Old  Manicheans,  are  re- 
probated for  not  admitting  many  books  as  canonical,  which 
were  deemed  apocryphal  by  the  primitive  fathers.  Did  not, 
for  instance,  Melito,  Athanasiiis,  and  Gregory  Nanzianzen, 
exclude  the  book  of  Esther  from  the  canon  :  why  then  was 
Luther  more  guilty  than  they  ?  Many  similar  instances 
might  readily  be  alleged,  which,  for  brevity's  sake  are 
omitted.  Protestants  then  receive  all  the  books  as  canoni- 
cal, which  were  always  deemed  such  by  the  ancient 
Church.  But,  the  Doctor  will  sny,  "  is  not  this  to  make  the 
Church  a  judge  in  this  matter?"  It  certainly  is  so,  but  not 
the  present  Church,  much  less  the  present  Roman  Church, 
but  the  general  consent  of  the  ancient  and  primitive  Church 
of  Christ.  The  Doctor  will  not  pretend,  that  any  Scrip- 
tures, retained  as  canonical  by  Protestants,  for  instance,  by 


J/  / 

the  Church  of  England,  are  not  canonical.  He  will  not 
allow,  that  the  infallibility  of  his  Church,  and  all  her  discri- 
minating doctrines,  cannot  be  proved  from  these  Scrip- 
tures; why  then  is  he  so  angry  at  others  being  omitted, 
which  never  had  the  sanction  of  the  universal  Church,  and 
without  which  all  necessary  articles  of  Christianity  may  be 
known  1  The  book  of  Maccabees,  indeed,  is  deemed  ca- 
nonical in  the  Roman  Church,  as  favouring  the  doctrine  of 
purgatory;  but  the  very  learned  Lyranus,*'  and  many  other 
Roman  Catholic  doctors,  consider  it  as  apocryphal,  and  so 
did  several  ancient  writers. 

The  Doctor  passes  from  "  the  determination  of  the  canon 
of  the  Scriptures,  to  the  consideration  and  study  of  the 
books  themselves  ;"  and  here  he  indulges  himself  in  a  vein 
of  obloquy  and  sophistry,  that  is  really  surprising.  Reas- 
serts, that  the  German  translation  of  the  New  Testament 
by  Luther,  corrupts  more  than  a  thousand  places  in  the 
New  Testament  alone  :  among  others,  (and  this  is  probably 
selected  as  the  most  material,)  he  quotes  Bom.  iii.  28« 
"  A  man  is  justified  by  faith  :''  Luther  adds  to  the  text  a 
word,  and  makes  it  faith  alone.  "  Other  instances,"  says 
he,  "are  unnecessary:"  and  so  indeed  they  are,  if  this  be 
the  most  flagrant,  for  Luther  adds  nothing  to  the  important 
or  evanofelical  tenet  delivered  in  the  text,  that  man  is 
really  justified  by  faith  alone.;  for  the  whole  verf*e  is 
*' Therefore  we  conclude  that  a  man  is  justified  by  faith, 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law;" — surely,  then,  "  by  faith 
alone."  The  fact,  however,  is,  we  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  corruptions  and  falsifications  with  which  the  Doctor 
charges  Luther,  and  other  Protestant  translators  ;  and  these 
charges  may  be  readily  retorted  upon  Lyranus,  or  Lucas 
Brugensis,  or  Laurentius  Valla,  or  Cajetan,  or  many  others, 
who  have  committed  palpable  errors  in  their  several  trans- 


*  Among  others,  Gregory  the  Great  did  not  hold  ihis  book  to  be  a  caiiaat- 
<:al  Scripture.    Mor.  lib.  19.  c.  13. 

li  2 


378 

lafions.  "  Now,  let  me  ask,"  says  tlie  Doctor,  "  from  which 
of  those  translations  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  a  sincere  and 
intelligent  Protestant  can  derive  an  infallible  certainty  of 
the  divine  revelation  of  the  doctrines  apparently  expressed 
in   them  ?"     The  answer  is,  he  derives  his  certainty  from 
arguments  applicable  to  them  all,  for  all  of  them,  I  believCy 
express  the  great  doctrines  of  religion;  and,  if  they  do  noty 
they  must  be  rejected   as  heretical.     The  Doctor  possibly 
might  not  have  perceived,  that   his  question  would  involve 
him  in  c/>nsiderable  difliculty  ;  for  it  may  be  asked  with 
equal  propriety,    which,    among    the    various  translations 
in  the  primitive  Church,  the  fathers  and  doctors  were  to 
adopt.     Let  us  hear  St.  Augustin,  lib.  2.  de  Chris,  doc. 
cap.  11.     "  They  who  have  translated  the  Scriptures  out  of 
the  Hebrew  into  Greek,  may  be  numbered ;  but  the  Latin 
interpreters  are  innumeraole  ;  for,  whensoever  any  one,  in 
the  first  times  of  Christianity,  met  with  a  Greek  Bible,  and 
seemed  to  himself  to  have  some  skill  in  both  languages,  he 
presently  ventured  upon  an  interpretation,"  or  translation: 
of  all  these,  that  which  was  called  the  Italian  was  esteemed 
the  best ;    as   St.    Austin  assures  us  .■    [ibid.    chap.   15.) 
"  Among  all  these  interpretations,"  says  he,  "  let  the  Ita- 
lian be  preferred.''     Yet,  so  far  was  the  Church  at  that  day 
from  presuming  upon  the   absolute  purity  and  perfection 
of  even  this  best  translation,  that  St.  Jerom  thought  it  ne- 
cessary to  make  a  new  translation  of  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  Hebrew,  and  to  correct  the  vulgar  version  of  the  New  from 
the  original  Greek.  (»See  lib.  de  Viris  illustribus.)     This 
work  he  undertook  and  performed,  at  the  request  of  Dama- 
sus.  Bishop  of  Home.     Now,  how  was  the  sincere  Christian 
to  discover  Scripture  truth,  from  all  this  variety  of  versions, 
or  where,   all  this  while,  was  the  infallible  authority   to 
point  out  to  him,  which  version  contained  the  orthodox  te- 
nets of  religion  ?   It  was  silent,  it  was  unknown,  and,  if  un- 
necessary at  that  period,  is  unnecessary  still,  and,  there- 


379 

fore,  in  this  matter,  Protestants   must  either  stand  or  fall 
with  the  primitive  Church. 

It  was  expected  that  something  would  be  said  of  the  Vul- 
gate in  this  place,  but  the  Doctor  has  very  prudently  omit' 
ted  any  mention  of  this  standard  version  of  his  Church. 
He  well  knows  that  it  abounds  with  erroneous  translations  : 
the  departure  from  the  original,  at  the  15th  verse  of  the 
third  chapter  of  Genesis,  where  the  important  promise  of  a 
Redeemer  is  generally  supposed  to  be  expressed,  and  where 
the  Vulgate  has  it,  "  ipsa  conteret  caput  tuum,"  "  she  (in- 
stead of  it,  or  he)  shall  bruise  thy  head,  is  one  among  the 
many  mistakes  that  could  be  selected  from  this  version." 
Nay,  its  warmest  advocates  allow,  that  "it  is  impossible  to 
discern  which  is  the  true  reading  of  the  vulgar  edition, 
but  by  having  recourse  to  the  originals,  and  dependence 
upon  them."  (Bell,  de  verbo  Dei  lib.  2  c.  11.)  And  Fr. 
Laynes,  the  general  of  the  Jesuits,  who  was  present  at  the 
council  of  Trent,  and  took  a  leading  part  in  all  its  delibera- 
tions, expressly  tells  us,  (Pro.  Edit.  Vnlg.  c.  21.  p.  99.) 
that,  "  If  the  council  had  purposed  to  approve  an  edition  in 
all  respects,  and  to  make  it  of  equal  credit  and  authority 
with  the  fountains,  certainly  they  ought,  with  exact  care, 
first  to  have  corrected  the  errors  of  the  interpreter."  Yet 
this  was  what  they  did  not,  and  thus  omitted  a  favourable 
opportunity  of  creating  in  the  minds  of  the  faithful  "  an 
assurance  of  the  true  Scriptures,"  which  the  Doctorcontends 
can  only  be  done  by  having  recourse  to  his  Church.  But 
of  what  service  was  her  claim  to  infallibility,  when  she  suf- 
fered whole  books  of  Scripture  to  be  utterly  lost,  and  the 
originals  of  those  that  remain  to  be  corrupted  ? 

From  this  train  of  reasoning,  which  is  reluctantly  re- 
peated, in  order  to  meet  the  Doctor's  sophistry,  continually 
recurring  in  a  hundred  different  shapes,  it  will  readily  be 
perceived,  that  the  three  propositions,  which  he  lays  down 
as  "  the  foundation,  plan,  and  rule  of  the  Protestant  creed 
and  faith,"  are  combated  with  the  weapons  of  errant  sophis- 


580 

try  and  polemical  chicanery.  The  first  proposition  is, 
"  that,  in  his  last  religious  inquiry,  the  first  instruction  the 
Protestant  receives  from  his  teacher  is  this,  that  the  Scrip- 
tures alone  contain  every  article  of  the  Christian  faith;" 
and  a  very  wise  instruction  it  is,  whether  such  a  Protestant 
be  competent  to  examine  the  Scriptures  or  not.  In  the 
first  supposition  he  is  referred  to  them;  in  the  second,  he 
must  rely  for  his  motives  in  believing  the  Scriptures  to  be 
God's  word,  on  the  learning  and  integrity  of  his  authorized 
teacher,  whom  God  commands  him  to  hear  as  his  appointed 
minister,  and  whose  doctrines  he  can  readily  compare  with 
those  of  the  Christian  Church  in  general.  Now,  how  will 
the  Doctor  adopt  any  other  mode  of  instruction  ?  How 
will  he  convince  his  pupil  that  the  Scriptures  alone  do  not 
contain  every  article  of  faith?  Will  he  not  refer  him  to 
his  unerring  Church,  and  tell  him  that  she  teaches  many 
articles  not  to  be  found  in  Scripture  alone  ?  Here  is  a  di- 
lemma, on  one  of  the  horns  of  which  the  Doctor  must  be 
tossed.  He  must  either  acknowledge  that  every  article  of 
faith  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  his  doctrines  of 
purgatory,  confession,  transubstantiation,  &c.  &,c.  are  not 
to  be  found  in  them.  If  this  latter  be  the  case,  why  appeal 
to  the  Scriptures  for  the  truth  of  these  doctrines;  if  it  be 
not,  tiien  it  is  clear  that  all  the  articles  of  the  Doctor's  faith 
are  contained  in  them. 

But,  adds  he.  Scripture  does  not  teach  us  that  it  contains 
every  article  of  faith ;  nor  does  it  teach  that  "  no  doctrine 
is  to  be  received  as  divinely  revealed  which  is  not  express- 
ly contained  in  it."  Quo  teneam  vulius  mutantem  Protea 
nodo  ?  How  often  must  we  repeat,  that,  provided  we  be 
assured  from  other  sources,  from  which  moral  certitude  can 
be  derived,  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word  of  God,  no  as- 
sertions of  their  own  are  necessary  in  the  first  instance,  be- 
cause these,  being  part  of  (hem,  cannot  be  proved  satisfac- 
tory from  themselves  ;  but  when  once  demonstrated,  by 
arguments  drawn  from  any  source  whatever,  to  be  the  ora- 


381 

cles  of  truth,  they  then  become  solid  foundations  of  our 
Christian  faith.  This  source,  the  Doctor  contends,  is  his 
infallible  Church  ;  without  her,  we  cannot  believe,  with  a 
divine  faith,  that  the  Scriptures  are  God's  word.  But 
where  is  this  infallibility,  this  tenet  of  his  Church,  to  be 
found  ?  He  will  answer,  in  the  Scriptures.  But  these  do 
not  contain  every  article  of  Christian  faith  ;  and,  therefore, 
possibly  not  this  tenet  of  infallibility  among  the  rest ;  so 
that,  after  all,  the  assurance  of  the  Scriptures  being  a  di- 
vine revelation,  is  as  much  an  act  of  religious  faith  with 
the  Protestant  as  the  Romanist.  The  two  Churches,  then, 
though  from  different  motives  of  credibility,  and  different 
sanctions,  finally  agree  in  coiifessing  the  divinity  of  the 
Scriptures :  this  point  once  established,  whatever  they 
afterwards  declare  of  themselves  becomes  an  article  of  our 
belief.  The  Doctor  contends,  that  in  no  passage  in  Scrip- 
ture, "  from  the  first  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelations, 
can  be  discovered  even  one  of  the  above  mentioned  propo- 
sitions:" though,  indeed,  if  the  Jirst  of  them  be  there,  the 
other  two  must  necessarily  follow  ;  for  nothing  can  be 
more  evident  than  this  conclusion,  that  "  if  the  Scriptures 
alone  contain  all  the  articles  of  Christian  faith,  none  but 
such  articles  can  be  received  as  divinely  revealed;  and 
that  from  the  Scripture  alone,  every  sincere  inquirer  may 
derive  all  the  articles  of  his  faith."  The  two  last  inferences 
are  perfectly  superfluous.  To  prove  the  Protestant  princi- 
ple, "  to  wit,  that  each  individual  should  (rather  say  can) 
discover  and  ascertain  all  the  articles  of  his  faith  by  his 
own  personal  examination  and  discussion  of  the  Scrip- 
tures," three  texts,  says  the  Doctor,  are  usually  alleged. 
In  this  statement  of  the  matter,  there  is  a  palpable,  I  will 
not  say  wilful,  misrepresentation.  Tt  is  intimated  that 
"each  individual  Protestant  is  obliged  to  discover  and  as- 
certain all  the  articles  of  his  faith,  by  his  own  personal  ex- 
amination and  discussion  of  the  Scriptures."  It  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  repeat  the  refutation  of  this  obstinate  sophism. 


382 

Let  us  proceed  to  the  three  texts  in  question:  if  carefully 
examined,  they  evidently  countenance  the  Protestant  rule 
of  faith ;  but  the  Doctor  has  omitted  others,  which  posi- 
tively establish  it.  In  "  reading  the  Scriptures,  from  the 
first  of  Genesis  to  the  last  of  Revelations,"  how  can  we 
account  for  the  following  text  having  escaped  his  notice  ? 
*'  But  continue  thou  in  the  things  which  thou  hast  learned, 
and  hast  been  assured  of,  knowing  of  whom  thou  hast 
learned  them."  (2  Tim.  iii.  14.)  Here  the  Apostle  points 
out  from  whom  his  pupil  had  received  the  assurance  of  the 
Scriptures ;  evidently  not  from  the  Scriptures  themselves. 
Then,  verses  15,  16,  and  17,  he  continues  :  "  And  that 
from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which 
are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith, 
which  is  in  Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspi- 
ration of  God,  and  is  profitable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for 
correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness;  that  the  man 
of  God  may  he  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good 
works."  This  text  wants  no  comment ;  it  establishes, 
without  a  doubt,  the  full  sufficiency  of  the  Scriptures  for 
every  purpose  of  Christian  doctrine  and  Christian  morality; 
it  supersedes  the  necessity  of  mentioning  other  Scripture 
declarations  to  the  same  effect,  and  utterly  annihilates  the 
cavils  of  the  Doctor,  in  pages  159,  and  the  two  following  of 
his  Reply.  When,  therefore,  the  Doctor  argues,  that  ww- 
learned^u^  ignorant  men  cannot  understand  the  Scriptures, 
we  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  he  means  a//,  or  any 
Scriptures  whatever,  or,  whether  he  means  they  cannot  un- 
derstand them  sufficiently,  either  from  their  own  investiga- 
tion, or  from  the  faithful  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  to  "  make 
them  wise  unto  salvation  :"  if  the  first,  the  most  learned 
are  in  the  same  situation  :  if  the  second,  daily  experience 
will  confute  him  :  for,  in  the  usual  distribution  of  intellec- 
tual blessings,  every  person  can  understand  the  story,  the 
precepts,  the  promises  and  threats  of  the  Gospel  :  if  the 
third,  the  above  text  most  positively  contradicts  him :  so 


sss 

that  we  may  safely  conclude  with  St.  Austin,  "  Ea  qua* 
manifeste  posita  sunt  in  sacris  Scripturis,  omnia  continent, 
qua3  pertinent  ad  lidem,  moresque  vivendi."  Whatsoever 
things  are  clearly  set  down  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  contain 
all  things  appertaining  to  faith  and  moral  conduct. 

"  But,"  says  the  Doctor,  "  I  go  farther,  and  affirm,  that 
no  Protestant  doctrine,"  that  is,  as  he  explains  it,  no  doc- 
trine which  distinguishes  Protestants  from  Roman  Catho- 
lics, "  can  be  proved  or  maintained  by  Scripture  alone :" 
which  is  merely  saying,  in  other  words,  that  such  doctrines 
must  be  false.  This  opens  the  whole  controversy  between 
the  Churches  anew  :  for  a  Protestant  is  equally  authorized 
to  say,  that  the  discriminating  doctrines  of  the  Roman 
Church  cannot  be  proved  from  Scripture,  or  otherwise. 
The  Doctor  has  not  probably  remembered,  in  prosecuting 
this  argument,  how  unnecessary  it  is  to  prove  a  negative, 
when  an  opposite  truth  can  be  clearly  demonstrated.  If  it 
be  shown,  that  the  three  angles  of  a  triangle  be  equal  to 
two  right  angles,  will  it  be  necessary  to  prove  that  they 
are  not  equal  to  four?  If  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  be 
proved  from  the  Scriptures,  will  it  be  necessary  to  demon- 
strate the  falsity  of  polytheism  ?  And  here  the  Doctor  in- 
dulges his  usual  propensity  to  quihble;  he  says,  for  in- 
stance, that  the  Protestant  tenet  is  "  the  Church  of  Christ 
is  fallible,  and  subject  to  errors  in  point  of  faith."  Now, 
the  Protestant  tenet  is  no  such  thing  ;  it  merely  asserts, that 
particular  Churches  arefaUihle,  and  subject  to  error  ;  that 
in  fact,  many  have  been  destroyed  by  adopting  fundamental 
errors,  and  that  none  are  secure  from  sharing  their  fate,  but 
such  as  adhere  to  the  foundations  of  truth  delivered  in  the 
Scriptures,  against  which  alone,  the  gates  of  hell  shall 
never  prevail.  It  is  not  necessary,  therefore,  for  "  the  Pro- 
testant divine  to  lay  his  finger  on  any  particular  text,  ex- 
pressing the  Church  of  Christ  to  be  fallible,  and  subject  to 
error,"  but  merely  to  show  that  soxne  imrticular  Church  has 
erred,  and  is  therefore  subject  to  error.     With  respect  to 


584 

the  Church  of  Rome,  this  has  been  abundantly  shown. 
Suppose  the  Doctor  should  be  asked,  how  he  proves  thc.t 
the  Roman  Church  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all 
Churches,  (^See  Pope  Piuses  creed.)  Would  he  not  have 
recourse  to  the  text, ''  Thou  art  Peter,"  6lc.  and  to  others 
of  the  same  tendency  ?  "  But  no,"  says  a  Protestant,  "  the 
Church  of  Jerusalem  was  the  mother  of  all  Churches." 
Now,  how  can  this  assertion  be  lefuted,  but  by  showing 
either  that  the  Scripture  teaches  the  supremacy  of  the  Ro- 
man Church,  or  that  she  declares  herself  to  be  supreme  1 
The  reader  will  therefore  see  the  fallacy  of  the  Doctor''s 
argument.  It  is  equally  evident  in  what  he  says  of  purga- 
tory. "  The  Scripture,"  says  he,  "  no  where  teaches  that 
there  is  no  purgatory  :"  therefore,  this  Protestant  doctrine 
is  unscriptural,  and  oversets  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith. 
But  let  it  be  asked,  how  the  Scriptures  could  say  any  thing 
on  a  question  which  had  never  been  agitated  when  the 
Scriptures  were  written  ?  The  word  of  God  deals  not  with 
chimeras.  As  well  might  it  be  said,  that  the  metempsy- 
chosis of  Pythagoras,  or  the  craniology  of  Dr.  Gall,  cannot 
be  refuted  by  the  Scriptures.  The  idea,  indeed,  of  a  state 
between  final  happiness  and  misery,  furnished  matter  for 
poetical  fiction,  but  could  never  have  gained  admission 
into  a  system  founded  upon  a  full,  "  perfect,  and  sufficient 
sacrifice,  oblation,  and  satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole 
world." 

As  to  the  doctrine  of  transubstantiation,  which  the  Doc- 
tor alleges  as  another  irresistible  argument  in  his  favour, 
it  cannot  surely  be  refuted  explicitly  from  the  Bible  ;  be- 
cause the  writers  of  the  Bible  knew  nothing  about  it.  The 
word  with  them  could  have  carried  no  meaning,  of  course 
not  that  of  its  modern  advocates.  Protestants,  therefore, 
do  not  say  that  the  refutation  of  this  tenet  is  clearly  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  ;  but  that  the  institution  and  nature  of 
the  Lord's  supper,  is  recorded  and  delivered  in  such  terms 
as  must  absolutely  preclude  the  admission   of  this   doc- 


S85 

trine. (e)    Sincerely  is  it  regretted  that  the  Doctor  mentions 
this  tenet  at  all.     At  the  present  day  of  deep  research  and 
biblical  accuracy,  when  the  human  mind  revolts  at  any  au- 
thority that  countenances  contradictions,  which  the  obvious 
use  of  our  senses  is  competent  to  discover,  it  would  be 
gratifying  to  every  liberal  person,  that  as  little  as  possible 
should  be  said  on  this  subject.    The  many  illustrious  mem- 
bers of  the  Roman  Church,  who  have  defended  by  their 
writings,  and   illustrated  in  their  lives,  the  common  doc- 
trines and  precepts  of  our  holy  religion,  have  established  a 
claim  to  the  veneration  of  the  writer  of  these  sheets,  which 
he  would  forfeit  with  reluctance,  and  he  is  willing  to  be- 
lieve that  in  refusing  to  examine  impartially  the  arguments 
of  Protestant  divines  against  this  tenet  of  their  Church, 
they  have  also  overlooked  the   spirit  of  intolerance    and 
horrid  persecutions  which  have  been  inflicted  on  mankind, 
for  merely  adhering,  in  this  instance,  to  the  testimony  of 
their  senses.     The  detail  of  these  atrocities  is  too  disgfust- 
ing  to  repeat,  unless  it  were  to  create  a  suspicion  in  honest, 
though   misguided   minds,  that  a  doctrine  which  counte- 
nances the  heresy  of  persecution,  and  has  filled  Christen- 
dom with  blood,  cannot  descend  from  the  Father  of  mer- 
cies, and  "  the  Giver  of  every  good  gift."     May  I  presume 
to  suggest  to  pious  Roman  Catholics  tlie   expression  of 
Averroes,  as  the  dictate  of  unsophisticated  reason,  "  Quan- 
(loquidem  Christian!  comedunt  quod  adorant,sit  anima  mea 
cum  philosophis  :" — "since  Christians  eat  what  they  adore, 
let  my  soul  be  with  the  philosophers:"  may  1  entreat  them 
to  consider,  if  transubstantiation  be   a  fiction,  to  what  a 
dangerous  delusion  they  are  exposed  in  adopting  it:  for 
can  any  act  of  idolatry  be  more  explicit,  than  the  adoration 
of  a  wafer,  instead  of  the  body,  and  blood,  and  divinity  of 
Christ?     Their  own  writers  allow  there  cannot.     There  is 
a  passage  in  the  first  Epistle  to  the  Cor.  x.  14,  which  seems 


(e)  See  notes  at  the  end. 

K  k 


386 

to  indicate  that  some  danger  of  this  kind  was  communicated 
to  the  prophetic  mind  of  the  Apostle  •  "  Wherefore,  my 
dearly  beloved,"  says  he,  *'  flee  from  idolatry.  I  speak  unto 
wise  men  :  judge  ye  what  I  say.  The  cup  of  blessing 
which  we  bless,  is  it  not  the  communion  of  the  blood  of 
Christ?  The  bread  which  we  break,  is  it  not  the  commu- 
nion of  the  body  of  Christ  ?"  He  says  not  that  the  cup,  or 
its  contents,  is  the  blood,  or  the  bread  the  body  of  Christ, 
but  only  the  communion,  or  participation  of  both,  in  all 
their  pardoning  and  sanctifying  effects. 

The  seven  concluding  pages  of  the  Doctor's  book,  con- 
taining little  more  than  a  repetition  of  his  preceding  argu- 
ments against  the  Protestant  rule  of  faith,  require,  of 
course,  no  additional  attention.  They  are  made  up  of  the 
same  bold  assertions  and  sophistical  reasonings,  which  run 
through  all  the  other  parts  of  his  work.  He  takes  it  for 
granted,  that  no  Protestant  community  is  entitled  to  the 
venerable  appellation  of  a  Church,  and  therefore,  "  Whilst 
each  individual  Protestant,"  says  he,  "  fondly  flatters  him- 
self that  he  is  a  member  of  some  Church,  in  the  unity  of 
some  faith,  and  in  the  communion  of  saints,  expressed  in 
the  Apostles'  creed — he  is,  in  fact,  destitute  of  any  settled 
tenets  of  faith,  devoid  of  any  Church  to  direct  and  instruct 
him  therein,  deprived  of  any  certain  rule  or  principle  for 
the  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures,  delivered  over  to  the 
suggestions  of  his  own  weak  reason,  exposed  to  the  delu- 
sions of  his  own  imagination,  and  even  to  the  influence  of 
his  own  local  prejudices  and  personal  attachments.''  Now, 
the  preceding  remarks  will,  I  trust,  be  sufficient  to  put 
every  reader  upon  his  guard  against  these  dismal  phantoms, 
conjured  up  by  the  Doctor  to  frighten  weak  and  untutored 
minds  :  in  them  he  will  perceive  the  efficacy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures "  to  make  us  wise  unto  salvation,"  and  to  enable  us 
"  to  know  of  the  doctrine,  whether  it  be  of  God,  if  we  do 
his  will :"  he  will  clearly  understand,  that  by  no  other 
means  can  a  man  convince  himself  that  religious  truth  is 


3f57 

delivered  in  the  Scriptures,  than  by  the  exercise  of  his  rea- 
son, in  a  candid  and  personal  investigation,  or  a  well- 
founded  deference  to  the  authority  of  his  teachers  :  and 
that  by  these  same  means  only,  can  the  Roman  Catholic 
attain  to  the  persuasion,  that  his  Church  is  infallible ;  un- 
less, indeed,  in  fixing  the  first  principles  of  his  faith,  he 
deem  it  his  duty  to  lull  his  reasoning  faculty  asleep,  in  obedi- 
ence to  a  Church  which  claims  an  exemption  from  all  error, 
without  permitting  him  to  investigate  this  claim.  Where- 
fore, if  in  these  circumstances,  if  in  a  blind  renunciation  of 
his  reason,  to  the  imposing  dictates  of  any  branch  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  founded  upon  vague  and  uncertain  tradi- 
tions, and  palpable  usurpation,  the  Roman  Catholic  can 
flatter  himself  with  a  complete  security,  and  "  repose  in 
conscious  safety  on  the  bosom  of  his  spiritual  mother,"  how 
much  more  solid  must  be  the  security  of  the  regular  and 
conscientious  member  of  any  other  branch  of  the  Christian 
Church,  which  refers  him  exclusively  to  the  oracles  of  God, 
and  teaches  him  to  acquiesce  ultimately  in  them.  In  com- 
plying with  this  direction,  he  may  humbly,  yet  confidently 
trust,  that  the  same  "  blessed  Lord  God,  who  has  caused  all 
Holy  Scriptures  to  be  written  for  our  learning,  will  grant, 
that  he  may  in  such  wise  hear  them,  read,  mark,  learn,  and 
inwardly  digest  them,  that  by  patience  and  comfort  of  his 
holy  word,  he  may  embrace,  and  ever  hold  fast  the  blessed 
hope  of  everlasting  life,  which  has  been  given  him  in  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ.  {Collect  for  2d  Sun.  in  Advent.) 
Such  is  the  divine  source  of  genuine  consolation  to  every 
believer  ;  and,  blessed  be  God,  the  streams  are  now  flowing 
copiously  from  it,  which  are  to  water  the  whole  earth. 
Among  every  people,  tongue,  and  nation,  their  circulation 
is  hailed  with  rapturous  eagerness  and  joy,  as  the  truth 
which  they  contain,  is  the  only  ground  of  present  comfort 
and  cheering  expectation  of  future  blessedness  :  it  is  wel- 
comed by  many  thoughtful  Christians,  as  ushering  in  that 
om,  holy,  Catholic,  and  Apostolic  Church,  which  they  con- 


388 

ceive  to  be  rather  the  future  than  present  object  of  their 
faith  :  and  which,  considered  in  this  light,  would  lessen 
some  difficulties  attending  this  article  of  our  belief.  The 
Doctor  may  think  as  lightly  as  he  pleases  of  these  fountains 
of  Gospel  security  and  assurance  ;  but  it  is  hoped  that  his 
opinions  have  not  many  advocates  in  America.  Lamentable, 
indeed,  would  be  the  reflection,  that  bigotry  of  any  kind,  no 
longer  able  to  hold  its  ground  in  Europe,  should  find  an 
asylum  in  any  Churches  among  us.  The  Doctor  will  pro- 
bably reply,  that  his  opinions  are  those  of  all  Roman  Catholic 
divines.(y)  But,  what  will  he  say  to  the  following  senti- 
ments, expressed  in  an  address  of  a  Roman  Catholic  priest 
in  Swabia,  to  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  in 
1804?  After  passing  the  highest  encomiums  and  warmest 
approbation  on  this  institution,  he  rejoices  "  at  the  great 
number  of  zealous  friends  of  the  Bible  in  London,  who  are 
filled  with  the  desire  to  send  out  the  pure  word  of  God,  as 
the  best  preacher,  into  the  world."  He  then  goes  on  to  ex- 
plain the  meaning  of  the  council  of  Trent,  in  prohibiting 
the  indiscriminate  reading  of  the  Scriptures,  and  concludes, 
"  Now,  I  beg  you,  my  dear  brother  in  Christ,  (meaning  the 
Protestant  Secretary  to  the  Society,  Dr.  Owen,)  to  receive 
these  few  lines  in  love — I  cannot  express,  in  terms  sufficient- 
ly strong,  the  fervency  of  my  joy,  and  of  my  love  toward?  all 
who,  throughout  England,  heartily  believe  in  Jesus  Christ 
as  their  only  Saviour,  and  zealously  endeavour  to  extend 
the  Redeemer's  kingdom.  I  embrace  them  all,  as  the  be- 
loved and  elect  of  God,  as  friends  and  brethren  in  Christ, 
let  them  be  ofivhatever  name,  or  belong  to  whatever  Church, 
or  denomination.''''  Here  are  sentiments  truly  becoming  to 
an  enlightened  minister  of  the  Gospel.  Nor  are  those  of 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Wittman,  Director  of  the  Ecclesiastical  Se- 
minary at  Ratisbon,  where  a  Roman  Catholic  Bible  So- 
ciety had  been  established,  less  grateful  and  dear  to  every 

(/)  See  notes  at  the  end. 


dS9 

Christian.  In  an  address  to  the  Roman  Catholics  through- 
out Germany,  in  1805,  peculiarly  simple,  liberal,  and 
devout,  he  begins  by  saying,  "  It  is  desirable  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  of  the  New  Testament,  might  be  put  into 
the  hands  of  many  pious  Christians  at  a  low  price  :  thereby 
they  would  be  comforted  in  their  afflictions,  strengthened 
in  their  trials,  and  better  preserved  from  the  temptations  of 
the  world.  Many  excellent  persons  do  not  find  in  the  public 
religious  instruction,  that  for  which  they  hunger  :  they  are 
also,  often,  in  the  confessional,  only  judged  for  their  out- 
ward deeds,  without  being  led  to  an  acknowledgment  of  their 
inward  corruption,  and  to  faith  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  their 
Redeemer  :  if  these  could  read  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the 
New  Testament,  in  the  quiet  time  of  holidays,  their  faith 
in  the  simple  doctrines  from  the  mouth  of  Jesus  Christ, 
would,  by  the  mercy  of  their  Saviour,  be  thereby  enlivened  ; 
and  the  Lord's  gifts  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  be  quickened  in 
them.  They  would  hear  the  voice  of  the  Father  in  their 
inward  part,  drawing  them  to  their  Saviour,  of  which  Christ 
saith,  "  They  shall  be  all  tauglit  of  God  ;  and  whosoever 
hath  learned  of  the  Father,  and  received  it,  cometh  unto 
me."  (John  xi.  14. — German  translation.)  And  he  con- 
cludes a  prayer  with  this  sentiment,  "  O  Lord,  Redeemer 
of  our  souls — if  it  please  thee,  let  thy  holy  history,  the  his- 
tory of  thy  childhood,  of  thy  ministry,  of  thy  suffering,  and 
of  the  victory  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  Apostles  and  first- 
lings of  the  Christian  Church,  come  into  the  hands  of  thy 
little  ones,  for  their  comfort  and  consolation."  Now,  would 
these  good  men  have  subscribed  to  the  Doctor's  opinion, 
that,  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  a  Protestant  cannot  expe- 
rience equal  consolation  and  peace  ? 

But  I  have  done :  solemnly  protesting,  that  on  this,  as 
well  as  on  every  other  occasion,  my  aim  has  been  to  con- 
tend not  for  victory,  but  for  truth ;  not  to  nourish,  but  to 
tear  up  the  old  and  baneful  root  of  bitterness ;  to  turn  the 

Kk2 


390 

attention  of  every  fellow  Christian  to  those  fundamental 
principles  of  our  common  religion,  which  are  delivered  in 
the  Bible ;  to  bring  to  every  tenet  not  discovered  there,  a 
jealous,  candid,  and  patient  examination  ;  that  all  the  truth 
revealed  by  Almighty  God  may  be  received  and  supported, 
in  order  to  promote  all  the  charity  and  godliness  which  it 
enjoins.  In  dismissing  this  controversy,  the  writer  of  these 
sheets,  however  indignant  may  be  his  feelings  at  some  of 
the  high  pretensions  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  their  dire- 
ful consequences,  discards  from  his  bosom  every  spark  of 
animosity  towards  any  of  her  liberal,  pious,  and  enlightened 
adherents,  "  who  love  the  Lord  Jesus  in  'sincerity" — To- 
wards all  such,  he  would  willingly  adopt  the  language  of  a 
Roman  Catholic  priest,  in  an  animated  address  to  the  British 
and  Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  pray  that  it  might  be  uni- 
versal :  "  United  to  Christ,"  says  he,  "  we  are  united  to 
each  other:  neither  continents,  nor  seas;  neither  various 
forms  of  government,  nor  different  outward  confessions  of 
religion,  can  separate  us :  all  things  pass  away — but  love 
abideth." 


NOTES. 


Note  (a)  page  339.     Perhaps  the  confidence  of  the  Doc- 
tor, in   this  passage,  will   be  somewhat  abated,  when  he 
finds  several  of  the  ancient  fathers,  and  divines  of  his  own 
Church  interpreting  it  in  the  sense  commonly  adopted  by 
Protestants.     Thus  St.  Chrysostom  ;  "  Christ  says,  super 
hanc  Petranij  upon  this  Rock.     He   says  not  super  himc 
Petrum ;    that  is,   upon  this  Peter;    for  Christ  built  his 
Church  upon  the  faith,  and  not  upon  the  man,  7ion  enim 
super  hominem,  sed  super  jidem  edificahat  ecclesiam.     (Horn, 
de  cruce  Domini.      Ham.  de  Pentecost,  et  55   i?i  Matt.) 
Hilary,  Gregory  Nyssene,   and  Cyril,  all   declare,  "  That 
was  the  Rock  which  Peter  confessed,  saying  of  Christ, 
Thou  art  the  Son  of  God."     {Hil.  I.  2.  de  Trin.  cap.  6. 
Greg.  Nyss.  in  Testimo.  vet.  test,  de  Trin.  contra  Judceos. 
Cyril  de  Trin.  lib.  4.)  The  learned  Theophylact  interprets 
the  words  in  the  same  way  ;  "  Upon  this  Rock,  meaning 
Christ."     (Comment,  in  Matt.  16.)     Eusebius,  Emissenus, 
or,  as  some  think,  Empserius,  are  explicit  on  this  subject. 
Theodoret,  Anselm,  and  others,  are  of  the  same  opinion; 
and  as  for  the  great  St.  Austin,  thougli  he  sometimes  varies 
his  interpretation,  yet  as  Dr.  Stapleton,  an  eminent  Roman 
Catholic  divine,  acknowledges,  (Doctr.  Princip.  Controv.  2. 
lib.  6.  c.  3.)   "  he  is  inclined   rather  by  the  word  rock,  to 
understand  Christ :  and  to  conceive   him  saying  to  Peter, 
I  will  not  build  me  upon  thee,  but  thee  upon  me."     The 
Latin  is  explicit,  "  Super  hanc  Petram,  &c.  id   est  super 
hanc  Petram  quam  confessus  es,  quam  cognovisti,  dicens, 
tu     es     Christus    filius    Dei    vivi,    super   hanc    aedificabo 
ecclesiam     meam,    super     me    aedeficabo     te,    non     me 
super   te."      Angus,  de  verba  dom.   secund.   Matt.   serm. 
13.)      And    again,  {Tract.  124.  in  John.)      "  Petra  erat 
Christus,  super  quam  ipse  aedificatus  est  Petrus  ;"  "the 
Rock  was  Christ,  upon  which   Peter  was  built."     Of  the 
same  opinion  was  Gregory  the  Great,  bishop  of  Rome, 
when  setting  in   the  very  supposed   chair  of  St.  Peter — 
"  Christ  himself  is  the  Rock  from  which  Peter  received  his 
name."     {Greg,  in  Psal.  PcBYxitent.  in  ilia  verba  Initio  tu 


392 

domine^  &;c.)  So  that  Calvin  had  good  reason  to  say,  "  that 
it  was  not  from  want  of  clear  and  ample  testimony  of  anti- 
quity that  he  objected  to  the  authority  of  the  fathers  on 
this  head,  but  from  fear  of  tiring  his  readers."  [Inst.  lib. 
4.  c.  6.)  Nor  are  the  declarations  of  several  Roman 
Catholic  divines  less  explicit  on  this  head  :  Nicholas 
Lyranus,  a  celebrated  expositor  of  the  14th  century  ;  Ni- 
cholas de  Cusa,  commonly  known  by  the  name  of  Cardinal 
Cusanus,  and  Cardinal  Hugo,  all  agree  in  asserting,  that 
by  the  Rock  in  this  place  is  meant  Christ."  {Lyr.  inMati. 
c.  16.)  "  Quanquam  Petro  dictum  est,  tu  es  Petrus,  &c. 
tamen  per  Petram,  Christum,  quem  confessus  est,  intelligi- 
mus."  (Cws.  Concord.  Cath.  lib.  2.  cap.  13.)  The  learned 
Jesuits,  Pererius  and  Salmeron,  interpret  the  words  in  the 
same  manner;  the  first  declaring,  (Comment,  in  Dan.  2.) 
*'  Christ  is  that  Rock  upon  which  the  Church  is  built ;"  and 
the  other  contending,  with  Ven.  Bede,  that  whenever  the 
word  foundation  occurs  in  the  singular  number,  it  means 
Christ  alone."  These  authorities  are  surely  abundantly 
sufficient  to  satisfy  any  reasonable  mind,  and  to  demolish 
all  the  Doctor's  arguments  built  upon  this  passage. 

Note  (b)  page  348.  If  the  Doctor  had  ever  looked  into 
the  work  of  the  learned  Dai  lie  de  usu  Patrujn,  he  would 
have  discovered  there  many  opinions  of  the  fathers,  cal- 
culated to  check  his  implicit  deference  to  their  authority. 
To  instance  only  a  few  of  the  many  that  might  be  men- 
tioned :  Justin  Martyr  held  the  millenarian  system  ;  and 
it  was  for  some  time  regarded  as  an  article  of  Christian 
faith,  though  afterwards  anathematized.  Irenaeus,  bishop 
of  Lyons,  says  that  it  was  a  tradition  from  St.  John,  that 
Christ  was  forty  or  fifty  years  of  age  when  he  began  to 
preach  :  and  expressly  affirms,  that  all  the  elders  who  were 
in  Asia  with  St.  John  witnessed  that  he  delivered  it  to 
them ;  and  that  they  who  had  seen  the  other  Apostles, 
attested  that  they  also  delivered  the  same  tradition.  [Adv. 
Hoeres.  lib.  2.  c.  39.)  Here  we  may  learn  what  we  are  to 
think  of  many  other  traditions,  far  less  authenticated,  and 
which  notwithstanding,  have  been  imposed  upon  the  faith, 
ful  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  Scriptures.  Clement  of 
Alexandria,  taught  that  the  pains  of  hell  are  merely  purga- 
torial and  are  not  to  be  eternal ;  that  the  angels  dis- 
covered to  the  women  whom  they  loved  upon  earth,  many 
secrets  which  Ihey  ought  not  to  have  revealed.     St.  Cyprian 


393 

thought  that  the  Eucharist  was  necessary  to  the  salvation 
of  children  and  should  be  administered  to  them  almost  as 
soon  as  they  are  born.  St.  Hilary  held  that  Christ  suffer- 
ed no  sense  of  pain  in  his  passion  ;  that  baptism  does  not 
cleanse  us  from  all  our  sins  ;  that  even  the  Virgin  Mary 
must  pass  through  an  expiatory  fire.  Origen  is  allowed  by 
all  to  have  written  many  great  and  material  errors.  "  St. 
Basil,"  says  the  learned  Jesuit  Petavius,  has  "  multa  mi- 
rifica,  et  si  verum  quasrimus,  parum  Catholica  ;"  i.  e.  "  many 
wonderful  things,  and,  in  truth,  by  no  means  Catholic  :" 
he  also  seems  to  have  thought  that  the  torments  of  hell 
were  not  to  be  eternal ;  and  St.  Gregory  Naz.  appears  to 
have  been  of  the  same  opinion.  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa 
taught  this  doctrine  in  the  most  express  manner.  St.  Am- 
brose thought  that  all  without  exception,  even  St.  Peter 
and  the  blessed  Virgin,  must  pass  through  the  cleansing 
fire.  St.  Epiphanius  advanced  many  strange  and  unwar- 
ranted dcctrines,  as  may  be  seen  in  Petavius's  notes  upon 
his  writings.  St.  Chrysostom  appears  to  have  believed  that 
the  sin  of  Adam  only  made  us  subject  to  corporal  death  ; 
he  admitted  none  into  heaven  before  the  general  resurrec- 
tion, and  recommended  praying  for  the  damned;  as  did 
also  St.  Augustin  and  John  Damascen.  The  rash  and  er- 
roneous notions  of  St.  Jerom  were  very  numerous,  and  his 
acrimonious  vulgarisms  fully  as  offensive  as  those  of  Luther; 
but  he  offers  as  an  apology,  "  that  he  sometimes  indulged 
himself  a  little  in  rhetorical  flourishes."  "  In  morem 
declamatorum  paululum  lusimus."  [In.  Helv.)  St.  Au- 
gustin maintained  the  necessity  of  infant  communion ; 
that  children  dying  without  baptism  were  condemned  to 
the  torments  of  hell ;  he  also  advanced  other  extraordinary 
sentiments,  many  of  which,  however,  he  afterwards  recalled 
in  his  retractations.  No  satisfaction  is  felt  in  adducing 
these  aberrations  of  the  human  mind,  even  in  the  best  of 
men  ;  and  it  is  done  merely  to  show  upon  what  w'eak  foun- 
dations every  religious  doctrine  rests,  when  once  we  lose 
sight  of  revelation.  The  several  passages  from  the  ancient 
fathers,  containing  the  above,  and  many  other  exceptiona- 
ble opinions,  are  quoted  at  full  length  in  Daille's  work  above 
mentioned. 

Note  (c)  page  351.     See  notes  at  pages  23  and  30  of  the 
Letter  to  the  Roman  Catholics  of  the  city  of  Worcester. 

Note  (d)  page  360.     Of  the  council  of  Trent,  no  men- 


394 

lion  was  at  first  intended  in  these  Remarks.  To  unbiassed 
minds  the  authority  of  Fra.  Paolo,  Vargas,  &c.,  was  deem- 
ed amply  sufficient.  The  accusation  of  wilful  and  reflected 
misstatement,  only  excites  a  smile.  For  surely,  when  it 
was  said,  in  the  Short  Answer,  "  that  the  whole  business 
was  conducted  by  the  haughty  legate  Crescentio,"  it  could 
only  allude  to  the  business  done  during  his  presidency.  It 
was  unwise  in  the  doctor,  by  a  high  wrought  panegyric  on 
this  council,  to  provoke  any  discussion  of  its  merits.  How- 
ever, in  case  the  doctor  should  ever  wish  to  renew  his  in- 
quiries respecting  this  assembly,  the  5th  chap,  of  the  4th 
book  of  Richer^s  History  of  General  Councils,  is  recom- 
mended to  his  perusal.  Richer,  though  professedly  a 
Roman  Catholic  doctor,  was,  it  is  acknowledged,  no  friend 
to  the  court  of  Rome  ;  on  which  account  his  life  was  at- 
tempted, as  that  of  Paolo  Sarpi  had  been  :  but  he  was  a 
man  of  integrity  and  erudition,  whom  Cardinal  Richelieu 
and  his  adherents  could  no  otherwise  confute,  than  by  en- 
deavouring to  raise  a  party  against  him,  and  to  ensnare  him 
into  the  hands  of  the  inquisitors.  "  In  the  council  of  Trent," 
says  he,  "  the  apostolic  legates  were  alone  permitted  to  pro- 
pose and  to  prescribe  whatever  was  to  be  done  ;  and  this 
was  artfully  contrived  on  purpose  to  prevent  any  effectual 
reformation  of  the  Church  and  Roman  court."  He  tells 
us,  "  that  the  Pope  contrived  that  of  267  prelates  who 
assisted  at  the  council,  at  least  two-thirds  should  be 
Italians,  who,  accustomed  to  the  dominion  of  the  Roman 
couit,  were  entirely  at  the  beck  of  the  Pontiff,  as  of  their  ab- 
solute sovereign."  Hence  we  cease  to  wonder  that  Sanctius, 
a  doctor  of  Sorbonne,  who  accompanied  the  Cardinal  of 
Lorrain  to  the  counsel,  should  congratulate  his  friend  Dr. 
D'Espence  for  not  following  him  thither,  as  he  intended. 
"  You  never  had,"  says  he,  "  a  better  inspiration  than  when 
you  determined  not  to  come  to  Trent.  For,  I  believe  you 
would  have  died  at  seeing  the  indignities  which  are  here 
committed  to  prevent  a  reform.  There  is  not  one  of  us, 
who  would  not  wish,  at  the  hazard  of  his  life,  to  be  back 
at  the  Sorbonne.  It  is  impossible  to  give  you  a  distinct 
account  of  all  I  have  seen  and  heard  in  the  council."  And  •» 
Richer  continues  to  remark,  that  "  it  is  inbred  in  the 
court  of  Rome  to  regard  her  ovvn  temporal  rights  and  ab- 
solute monarchy,  more  than  the  patrimony  of  Christ,  and 
the  salvation  of  souls  ;  that  is,  to  prefer  human  claims  to 


S95 

the  eternal  law  of  God :  from  whence  so  many  heresies 
and  schisms  have  arisen,  have  been  propagated,  and  are 
daily  more  and  more  increasing."  "  In  short,"  adds  this 
learned  Sorbonist,  "  this  was  the  end  and  aim  of  the  re- 
form carrying  on  at  Trent;  not  to  have  any  real  good  in 
view,  but  merely  to  attend  to  a  certain  outward  show,  and 
specious  semblance ;  while,  in  the  meantime,  every  thing 
was  accommodated  to  the  private  convenience  and  splen- 
dour of  the  Roman  court.  Hence  that  magnificent  and 
almost  theatrical  manner  of  ornamenting  their  churches 
and  their  altars  ;  their  sacerdotal  dresses  of  gold  and  silver 
tissue — those  frequent  and  solemn  censures  and  condem- 
nations of  books — those  swarms  of  new  religious  orders, 
which  are  daily  arriving  from  Rome.  By  these,  and  simi- 
lar artifices,  the  attention  of  their  people  is  dexterously 
called  off  from  every  thought  and  hope  of  a  reform,  that 
the  princes  and  prelates  of  the  Roman  Church  may  still  con- 
tinue to  gratify  every  wish,  and  to  indulge  themselves, 
without  control,  in  all  their  accustomed  luxuries  and  enjoy- 
ment'%"  Can  this  be  the  result  of  those  decrees,  which, 
we  are  told,  "seemed  good  to  the  Holy  Ghost?"  But  more 
reflections  are  unnecessary. 

Note  (e)  page  385.  As  some  readers  of  these  Remarks 
may  not  possibly  possess  the  valuable  commentary  of  the 
learned  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  I  cannot  forbear  soliciting  their 
attention  to  a  note  of  his,  at  the  end  of  chap.  xii.  1  Coi\ — 
"  It  may  be  necessary,"  says  he,  "  to  show  that  without  the 
cup  there  can  be  no  Eucharist.  With  respect  to  the  hread^ 
our  Lord  had  simply  said,  'Take,  eat,  this  is  my  body;' 
but  concerning  the  cup  he  says,  '  Drink  ye  all  of  this  :' 
for  as  this  pointed  out  the  very  essence  of  the  institution, 
viz.  '  the  blood  of  atonement,'  it  was  necessary  that  each 
should  have  a  particular  application  of  it ;  therefore,  he 
says,  '  Drink  ye  all  of  this.'  By  this  we  are  taught  that 
the  cup  is  essential  to  the  Lord's  supper :  so  that  they  who 
deny  the  cup  to  the  'people,  sin  against  God's  institution  ; 
and  they  who  receive  not  the  cup,  are  not  partakers  of  the 
body  and  blood  of  Christ.  If  either  could,  without  mortal  pre- 
judice, be  omitted,  it  might  be  the  bread  ;  but  the  cup,  as 
pointing  out  the  blood  poured  out,  i.  e.  the  life,  by  which 
alone  this  great  sacrificial  act  is  performed,  and  remission  of 
sins  procured,  is  absolutely  indispensable.  On  this  ground,  it 
is  demonstrable,  that  there  is  not  a  Popish  priest  under 


396 

heaven,  who  denies  the  cuy  to  the  people,  (and  they  all  do  this,) 
that  can  be  said  to  celebrate  the  Lord's  Supper  at  all  ;  nor 
is  there  one  of  their  votaries  that  ever  received  the  holy 
sacrament.  How  strange  is  it,  that  the  very  men  who  plead 
so  much  for  the  hare^  literal  meaning  of  '  this  is  my  body,' 
in  the  preceding  verse,  should  deny  all  meaning  to  'Drink 
ye  all  of  this  cup,'  in  this  verse  !  And,  though  Christ  has, 
in  the  most  positive  manner  enjoined  it,  will  not  permit  one 
of  the  laity  to  taste  it  !"  "  See,"  he  adds,  "  the  whole  of 
this  argument  at  large,  in  my  discourse  '  On  the  Nature  and 
Design  of  the  Eucharist.' ''  On  this  subject,  it  may  be 
useful  just  to  add,  that  had  the  doctrine  of  transubstantia- 
tion  prevailed  generally  in  the  ancient  Church,  when  the 
Arian  heresy  arose,  how  readily  might  it  have  been  refuted 
by  alleging  the  practice  of  all  Christendom  in  adoring 
Christ  in  the  Eucharist  as  the  Supreme  God  ?  And  yet  no 
such  argument  occurs  in  the  writings  of  the  orthodox  fathers. 
Note  (/)  page  388.  That  the  Doctor's  theology  is  by  no 
means  in  unison  with  the  system  generally  prevailing  at  this 
day  among  Roman  Catholic  divines  in  Europe,  will  roadily 
appear,  by  comparing  it  with  Veron's  famous  rule  of  faith. 
to  which  an  appeal  is  commonly  made,  by  modern  apolo- 
gists for  the  Roman  Church.  If  this  be  in  reality  the  rule 
of  her  faith,  the  writer  of  these  sheets,  however  he  may  ap- 
prove of  it  in  many  points,  solemnly  declares,  and  in  this 
the  Doctor  will  probably  agree  with  him,  that  the  doctrines 
which  he  was  taught  in  early  life  as  articles  of  faith,  were 
very  different.  A  few  extracts  from  this  famous  rule  are 
here  presented  to  the  reader,  in  which  he  will  perceive 
such  an  approximation  to  Protestant  principles,  as  with 
mutual  candour  might  possibly  be  ripened  into  church 
communion.  According  to  this  rule  we  are  informed,  that 
nothing  is  of  faith,  or  necessary  to  be  believed,  which  was 
not  revealed  to  us  through  the  Prophets,  Apostles,  or  canoni- 
cal writers  :  nothing  is  of  faith,  which  we  know  from  reve- 
lations made  since  the  times  of  the  Apostles  :  no  doctrine 
founded  on  the  word  of  God,  or  any  text  of  Scripture,  which 
has  been  variously  expounded  by  the  fathers,  is  a  doctrine 
of  faith  :  no  conclusion,  however  certainly  and  evidently 
deduced  from  any  proposition  of  faith,  is  a  doctrine  of  Ca- 
tholic faith:  not  all  the  practices  even  of  the  universal 
Church,  are  sufficient  to  make  any  thing  an  article  of  Chris- 
tian belief;  even  a  general  council  may  err,  in  controver- 


597 

sies  which  chiefly  depend  on  the  information,  and  testimony 
of  men  :  although  the  Pope  be  not  infallible  in  respect  to 
his  decrees  of  excommunication,  yet  a  person  who  should 
not  obey  them,  would  sin  mortally,  and  incur  the  excom- 
munication :   it  is  not  of  faith,  that  all  our  good  works  are 
meritorious  of  eternal  life  :  it  is  not  of  faith,  that  a  just  man 
can  make  satisfaction  for  another:  it  is  not  of  faith,  that 
there  is  a  treasure  in  the  church,  consisting  of  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  saints:   it  is  not  of  faith,  that  the  church  has 
power  to  grant  such  indulgences,  by  which  the  punishments 
due  either  in  this  life,  or  in  purgatory,  for  sins  already  re- 
mitted, are  relaxed  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  saints  are  our 
mediators,  and  not  Christ  alone  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the 
canonized  saints  are  really  saints,  or  that  such  persons  ever 
existed :  it  is  not  of  faith  that  the  body  of  Christ  is  con- 
tained in  the  symbols,  as  in  a  place  :  it  is  not  of  faith  that 
the  sacrifice  of  the  mass  is  of  infinite  value  ;  that  saints  can 
hear  our   prayers,  or  that  Christians  are  bound  to  pray  to 
them  ;  that  images,  pictures,  and  relics,  must  be  venerated 
and  honoured.    All  these  opinions  m'e,  ov  were,  universally 
taught  in  the  Galilean  Church;  and  no  man  was  deemed  a 
heretic  for  maintaining  them.     Now,  let  me  ask,  if  one  Ro- 
man Catholic,  out  of  one  hundred,  would  recognise,  in  this 
exposition  of  his  faith,  the  doctrines  he  has  always  been 
taught  to  believe?  Will  Doctor  O'Gallagher  allow  this  ex- 
position to  be  fair  and  candid  ?    Will   he  allow,  that  any 
person,  who  should  all  his  life  refuse  to  address  any  prayers 
to  saints,  or  ever  to  invoke  the  Virgin  Mary  ;  who  should 
never  strive  to  gain  indulgences,  plenary  or  partial ;  who 
should  withhold  every   kind  of  veneration  to  images  and 
relics;  who  should  never  pray  for,  nor  assist  at  prayers  for 
the   dead ;  who  should  deny  that  the   saints   are  our  me- 
diators, dec,  would  such  a  person,  I  ask,  be  considered  as 
an  orthodox  Roman  Catholic?    This  argument  might  be 
carried  much   further,   and   illustrated   in   many  other  in- 
stances,  so  as  to  show  that  the  boasted  infallibility  of  the 
Roman  Church,  is  of  little  service  in  settling  either  the 
principles  or  practices  of  her  adherents. 


THE    END 


■^  V  ^^^^^ 


